United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Community Infrastructure and Livelihood Recovery Programme (CILRP)

Final Evaluation Report

Evaluation timeframe: November-December 2020

Dr. Dhruba Gautam and Mr. Pustak R Ojha Independent Evaluators

February 2021

Project information

Project title Community Infrastructure and Livelihood Recovery Programme (CILRP) “Livelihood Recovery for Peace” Atlas ID 00057322 Corporate UNDAF/CPD Outcome 3: By 2022, environmental management, outcome and sustainable recovery and reconstruction, and resilience to climate change and output natural disaster are strengthen at all levels CPD Output 3.5: Improved capacities of communities and government for resilient recovery and reconstruction. Country Nepal Region Asia Pacific Date project 1st June 2015 document signed Start Valid period Project dates June 2015 31 December 2020 Project budget USD 7.1 million Project USD 6.6 million expenditure at the time of evaluation Funding source Government of Mauritius, International Medical Corps (IMC), Bridge Head Limited, Qatar Red Crescent, Royal Thai Government, UNDP Implementing Action Nepal, CDC-Nepal, CDECF, CDF, CSN, CSRC, ECARDS Dolakha, party ICDC, LACCoS, MANEKOR Society Nepal, NFGF, REIS, RUDEC, SDSC, SJASK, SSICDC, SUK Nepal and SWAS, Evaluation information Evaluation type Project evaluation Final/midterm Final review/ other Period under Start: June 2015 End: December 2020 evaluation Evaluators Dr. Dhruba Gautam and Mr. Pustak R Ojha

Evaluator email [email protected] [email protected] address Evaluation dates Start Completion November 2020 February 2021

Acknowledgment

We are grateful that UNDP senior management entrusted us to conduct this evaluation. The inputs of PEB members, UNDP CO and UNDP's other project's officials and local government's officials were instrumental during the field consultations. We are also grateful to Community Infrastructure and Livelihood Recovery Programme (CILRP) team for their support in arranging meetings and field visits. This evaluation report has been possible because of the support of so many people personally and professionally. We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the people of 10 schemes of four districts who contributed to this evaluation in many different ways: by sharing their experience, thoughts and opinions. Their dedication, input and willingness to share about critical issues were extremely valuable.

As importantly, we are also grateful to officials at CILRP namely Niranjan Tamrakar, Shrutina Dhanchha, Dharma Raj Dawadi, Rachit Shrestha, and Amit Bista for their insights and constructive feedback on draft evaluation report, and contribution in filling the data gaps.

For any lapse or error in this evaluation report, the responsibility rests solely with us.

Thank you all.

Dhruba Gautam and Pustak R Ojha Independent Evaluators NEPAL

Disclaimer The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this Evaluation Report are those of the evaluators, hence do not necessarily reflect the official views of donor agencies viz. Government of Mauritius, International Medical Corps, Bridge Head Limited, Qatar Red Crescent, Royal Thai Government, Korea International Cooperation Agency and UNDP. For more information, please contact evaluators: Dhruba Gautam ([email protected]) and Pustak R Ojha ([email protected]).

List of acronyms and abbreviations CPD Country Programme Document CfW Cash-for-work CGI Corrugated galvanized iron CILRP Community Infrastructure and Livelihood Recovery Project CMDP Cooperative Management Development Project CO Country Office COVID-19 Corona Virus Diseases-19 DAC Development Assistance Committee DFID Department for International Development DRR Disaster risk reduction ENPHO Environment and Public Health Organization FGD Focus group discussion GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion HRBA Human rights-based approach KII Key informant interview KISAN Knowledge-Based Integrated Sustainable Agriculture in Nepal MEDEP Micro-Enterprise Development Programme MEDPA Micro Enterprise Development Programme Technical Assistance MoALD Ministry of Agricultural and Livestock Development MoFAGA Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration MoLMCPA Ministry of Land Management, Co-operatives and Poverty Alleviation NRA Nepal Reconstruction Authority O&M Operation and maintenance ODF Open defecation free OECD Economic Co-operation and Development PC Project Coordinator PDNA Post-Disaster Needs Assessment PEB Project's Executive Board PMAMP Prime Minister Agriculture Modernization Project PMEP Prime-Minister Employment Programme PwD Person with disabilities RCC Reinforced cement concrete SFDRR Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction UC User committee VCDP Value Chain Development Project WASH Water sanitation and hygiene WUG Water users' group

Glossary of local terms Janajati It may refer to Adivasi, a general term in Nepal meaning primitive ethnic groups, but very specific legally. Dalit Untouchable, also called Dalit, officially Scheduled Caste, in traditional Nepalese society, the former name for any member of a wide range of low-caste Hindu groups and any person outside the caste system.

iii | P a g e

Executive Summary 1.Background: Aftermath of the devastating 2015 earthquake in Nepal, the UNDP launched the Community Infrastructure and Livelihood Recovery Programme (CILRP) in seven of the 14 worst- affected districts: Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Kavre, Nuwakot, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok. CILRP was designed using the UNDP’s experiences in the Livelihood Recovery for Peace Project, which was implemented from 2009 to 2015 in three central Terai districts: Mahottari, Sarlahi and Rautahat. CILRP was funded by the Government of Mauritius, International Medical Corps, Bridge Head Limited, Qatar Red Crescent, Royal Thai Government, Korea International Cooperation Agency and UNDP’s core fund. This report presents the findings from the final evaluation of the CILRP conducted to assess its performance against the targeted outputs, outcomes, and impact. The evaluation has covered the achievements of the programme from the beginning in 2015 to the end of Dec 2020.

Prior to evaluation, during inception period, the project evaluability analysis was made to ascertain (i) whether the project has a clearly defined results framework with indicators, (ii) the extent of data availability for evaluation, (iii) the availability of secondary information (progress reports, field visit reports, etc.), (iv) whether there is a clearly defined purpose and scope of evaluation, and (v) whether there are clear evaluation questions that are realistic given the project design. After a thorough analysis of these five parameters, evaluators concluded that the planned evaluation was relevant.

The evaluation was carried out in accordance with UNDP's standards and procedures for independent evaluators who were not previously involved in the project’s design or implementation. Overall objective of the evaluation was to assess the results and approaches of the project interventions. The evaluation has therefore assessed results against output targets and project’s contribution to higher level outcome results (changes in socio economic status through the project interventions and), assess the implementation approaches, and challenges encountered as well as identified the key lessons learnt and made specific recommendations for future course of actions while designing similar programme in the post disaster recovery context. The targeted audience of this report are concerned ministries, donors, local government, UNDP and its project team. Evaluation findings (lessons learned and way forward) will be used to formulate similar programme in the future.

2. Evaluation approach and method: The evaluation used the mixed method of information analysis: both qualitative and quantitative data were used to analyse the findings and draw conclusions. Qualitative information was collected using participatory tools and techniques like focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews (KIIs), most significant change, observation, case studies, and site visits. In order to acquire personal and detailed opinions about the project’s interventions, a total of 15 FGDs, 36 KIIs, and 15 competency analyses were conducted. The evaluation used project- generated data to provide quantitative results.

3. Findings against Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria: CILRP was assessed using DAC evaluation criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. The project scored 'very high' in terms of relevance for the context because it contributed to filling the needs for construction and recovery among earthquake-affected communities largely from Janajati1 communities (56%). as the project areas are predominant of Janajati communities, and women (52%). Among the total households benefited, 8,455 (5%) were headed by single women. CILRP was successful in addressing the needs and priorities of the target groups and communities despite the changes brought about by COVID-19. The readjustment of the project and the reallocation of resources for CfW-based response was highly relevant to address the emerging situation. A total of 1,395 schemes were implemented; built or renovated 789 community infrastructures of diverse types, supported 536 livelihood interventions, implemented 16 DRR training events, and 54 short term IGAs. Among 1,395 schemes, a total of 182

1 Janajati may refer to Adivasi, a general term in Nepal meaning primitive ethnic groups, but very specific legally. iv | P a g e

schemes were as part of COVID-19 response. A total of 54 community infrastructures2 (as part of COVID-19 response) provided nearly 42 thousand person-days of employment locally.

The delivery and cost efficiency of the project was rated as ‘high’ as it successfully delivered above 100 percent of the planned projects within the stipulated timeframe. Except for a few cases, all projects were completed in time. The project allocated a balance of resources for programme and management costs and carried out rigorous expenditure tracking. The CILRP’s own budget comprises only 55% of the total amount. Another 27% was matched and borne by local governments, 14% by local communities, and 4% by third parties (I/NGOs and the private sector), that demonstrates programme’s cost-effectiveness. Community contributions, which ranged from 10% to 30% of the project’s total costs, reflects high level of community ownership. The total budget allocated to CILRP was USD 11,856,962 (from 2015 to 2020). Out of this, 95% had already been utilized by the third week of December 2020.

CILRP generated many impacts at the community. With the rehabilitation of drinking water and sanitation facilities, access to water and sanitation improved immediately. Similarly, reconstruction and rehabilitation irrigation canal increased irrigation command area, cropping intensity resulting to increase in crop yields. Together, they helped build resilience and the capacity of the communities to cope with and adapt to future disasters. The project contributed toward bringing about positive changes, primarily with regard to knowledge and skills, access to improved farming technologies and services. Livelihoods supports, at individual level, to persons with disabilities has brought a significant improvement in their lives. CILRP also contributed toward achieving UNDP's Country Programme Document, CPD (2018-2022) in two main areas of work: securing inclusive economic growth and increasing climate adaptation and environmental resilience.

CILRP’s performance in sustainability was 'moderate' as, in many cases visited, community infrastructures have yet to be fully utilized and institutionalized with proper O&M procedures. COVID-19 has impacted in the institutionalization of community infrastructures.

CILRP's partnership model was highly appreciated by all stakeholders, from the federal to the local government levels. CILRP's working modalities especially in the selection of schemes, provision of matching funds, and transparent approach/process were also much appreciated. The partnership among the UNDP, partner NGOs, local governments and user committees (UCs) was effective for resource sharing, technical backstopping, and building local ownership. Women-friendly technologies were adopted in the design and subsequent implementation of livelihood schemes; thus, women’s workload and drudgery were reduced. The project’s data disaggregation approach was praiseworthy, and local government officials also replicated this approach in their own management of their databases. Using the disaggregated data, the project was able to adjust its approaches to encourage the participation of target groups in the project’s work and services.

The programme performance was scored/assessed by using ‘a five point scale’ against the DAC evaluation criteria. The overall performance of the programme rated ‘satisfactory’. A summary of findings from the evaluation of each criterion is presented below.

Evaluation Score Description of performance criteria Relevance 1 Highly relevant to post disaster context to fill recovery gaps as identified by PDNA Coherence 2 Very strong external coherence with local and federal government structure. Could have been done much better if inter project learning and practices were adequately/sufficiently adapted.

2 COVID-19 response activities were run in Nuwakot, Dolakha, Rasuwa Sindhupalchok, Gorkha, Dolakha, Surkhet, Okhaldhunga and Solukhumbu districts. v | P a g e

Effectiveness 2 Implementation modality through local government and partner NGOs found effective to generate local employment contributing to local economy recovery. However, technical backup and resources mobilisation capacity among the livelihoods project beneficences found relatively inadequate. Efficiency 1 The delivery and cost efficiency of the project was high as it successfully delivered above 100 percent of the planned projects within the stipulated timeframe. Impact 3 The outcomes are largely aligned with the expected impact of the programme contributing towards positive changes with regard to knowledge and skills, access to improved farming technologies and services. However, tangible impact on lives and livelihoods of the targeted communities are yet to realize at the fullest scale as it takes time. Sustainability 3 The overall sustainability of CILRP was rated moderate. Despite strong local ownership, the project operation and management systems are not fully established and operational capacity has not been developed fully among the user's committees, largely impacted by the COVID-19. Human right 2 The project has targeted marginalised communities, single women and person living with disabilities (PwDs). Livelihoods interventions specially targeted to single women and PwDs was implemented in collaboration with agency working to ensure their rights. Disability friendly structures built in public facilities. Gender and 2 Gender and social inclusion has been taken as cross-cutting issue in the Social project. From the beginning of the project design, GESI has been Inclusion ensured. Gender friendly technologies and women focused skill (GESI) development and income generating activities are promoted. Overall 2 Scale: 1: Highly satisfactory, 2: Satisfactory, 3: Moderately satisfactory, 4: Somehow satisfactory, 5: Not satisfactory

4. Good practices and learning: Tripartite partnerships with local government and UCs and adopting a matching fund approach worked well in leveraging local resources and building the capacity of local agencies. Simple and labor-intensive community infrastructures are effective for organizing people locally and providing them employment opportunities through cash-for-work schemes. Women- specific interventions were effective when they were associated with gender-associated needs. For example, the reusable sanitary pad production enterprise in Nuwakot was a success as it provided readily available, cost-effective and environment friendly sanitary pads to women. Specific learning from CILRP included (i) working with pre-registered and existing farmers’ groups and cooperatives increases efficiency, (ii) selecting demand-driven schemes ensures high levels of participation and contributions from community members, and (iii) the participation of stakeholders, including local governments and UCs, in the selection of schemes promoted local ownership and reduced the possibility of resource duplication. Projects/schemes selection from the list of local government, however, missed opportunities to identify project from poverty pocket areas, and avoid political interest.

5. Conclusions: Within a short period of time, CILRP set a successful example of community-based infrastructures and livelihood recovery initiatives. It was able to manage diverse projects and reach over 800,000 people in the ten project districts. Its outstanding performance in delivery was made possible due to partnerships with local governments, partner NGOs and communities. Though the opportunity to learn from and adapt to the UNDP’s portfolio and outside projects were grossly missed in this programme probably due to insufficient time for project inception and preparation. Resource sharing with local governments and UCs through a matching fund has helped the project achieve good value for money.

vi | P a g e

6. Recommendations: For future programming of a similar nature, the following recommendations are suggested. a) Design at least a one-month "preparatory phase" to share project details, orientation on contributions required and sustainability planning, sharing standard criteria for selecting schemes, forming or reforming and then registering committees, and imparting technical training. Ensure that at least 5% of the total cost of any infrastructure related project is allocated to an O&M fund to ensure the sustainability of the schemes. b) Take poverty pockets and marginalized and unreached areas to prioritize projects and target beneficiaries. Conduct vulnerability assessments and barrier analysis to ensure that women and the most vulnerable sections of the society benefit from the programme. c) Synchronize project planning with local government planning and the budgeting cycle so that matching funds can be ensured right from the beginning. d) Design a few but very strategic projects with increased unit budgets so that local government resources can be harvested to develop a resilient and inclusive village modeling economic recovery. e) Strengthen learning and sharing within the programme (from one district to another district and from one partner to another partner), among different programme within the UNDP (e.g. MEDPA, CMDP, VCDP), and beyond. f) Develop an exit strategy in advance to ensure the sustainability of the project’s schemes. g) Follow the Nepal government's occupational safety and health guidelines (2017) for construction projects and provide at least minimum safety gear to construction workers to reduce workplace risk. h) Mainstream disaster and climate risks in the designs of community infrastructure and livelihood interventions. i) Promote and upscale value-adding technologies to reap the maximum benefit from livelihoods by providing simple processing and post-harvest technologies. j) Carry out detailed documentation of good practices and lessons learned from CILRP as many innovations are already in place and could be replicated in new areas so that other agencies working in recovery through community infrastructures and livelihood interventions could also benefit. k) Continue emphasis on some of the good practices viz. (i) tripartite partnership approach; (ii) provision of matching funds; and (iii) selection of low-cost, labor-intensive and simple technology. l) Develop dedicated log-frame along with outcome and impact level indicators in order to gauze the programme results in the periodic basis. m) Mainstream GESI in the programmatic cycle i.e. collecting baseline data, designing, implementing and monitoring the project in order to distribute the projects benefits to all people irrespective of gender and caste/ethnicity.

vii | P a g e

Table of content

List of acronyms and abbreviations ...... iii Glossary of local terms ...... iii Executive Summary ...... iv 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Description of the interventions ...... 1 2.1 Background and rationale: ...... 1 2.2 Programme context ...... 3 2.3 The Programme ...... 3 3. Evaluation scope and objectives ...... 5 3.1 Evaluation scope ...... 5 3.2 Evaluation objectives ...... 5 3.3 Evaluation criteria and evaluation questions ...... 6 4. Evaluation methods and approach ...... 6 4.1 Data collection procedures and instruments ...... 7 4.1.1 Secondary data collection ...... 7 4.1.2 Primary data collection ...... 7 4.2 Data analysis and development of evaluation report ...... 9 4.3 Performance standards ...... 9 4.4 Stakeholder participation ...... 9 4.5 Ethical consideration ...... 9 4.6 Background information on evaluators ...... 9 4.7 Major limitations ...... 10 5. Evaluation findings ...... 10 5.1 Relevance ...... 10 5.2 Effectiveness ...... 14 5.3 Coherence ...... 20 5.4 Efficiency ...... 22 5.5 Sustainability...... 27 5.6 Impact ...... 31 5.7 Cross cutting issues ...... 36 5.7.1 Partnership ...... 36 5.7.2 GESI ...... 37 5.7.2 Human right ...... 38 6. Good practices and lessons learnt ...... 40 6.1 Good practices ...... 40 6.2 Lessons learnt ...... 40 viii | P a g e

7. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 41 7.1 Conclusions...... 41 7.2 Recommendations ...... 41 Annexes ...... 44 Annex 1: Projects by source of fund and duration ...... 44 Annex 2: List of people interviewed ...... 44 Annex 3: List of sub-projects/schemes visited during evaluation fieldwork ...... 47 Annex 4: Evaluation criteria and questions ...... 49 Annex 5: Monitoring Visits by PEB members, donors and UNDP CO ...... 53 Annex 6: List of documents ...... 54 Annex 7: Target Vs Progress (schemes by project) ...... 54 Annex 8: Beneficiaries households, target vs achievement by project ...... 54 Annex 9: Local short-term employment from construction work by project ...... 55 Annex 10: Beneficiaries details by types of project ...... 55 Annex 11: Beneficiaries details by project types and schemes ...... 56 Annex 12: Ethnicity representation in project beneficiaries ...... 56 Annex 13: Number schemes/activities by project ...... 57 Annex 14: Budget contribution by Project (In NPR) ...... 57 Annex 15: Skill development and production enhancement training ...... 57 Annex 16: Project's budget and beneficiary HHs ...... 57 Annex 17: Project wise duration, start and completion data ...... 58 Annex 18: Updated data on the visited schemes ...... 58 Annex 19: Description of Projects under CILRP ...... 59 Annex 20: Evaluation ToR ...... 64 Annex 21: UNEG Code of Conduct signed by the evaluators ...... 74

List of Figures Figure 1: Earthquake affected districts ...... 3 Figure 2: Schematic presentation of Programme results framework ...... 5 Figure 3: DAC Evaluation criteria ...... 6 Figure 4: Types of schemes ...... 14 Figure 5: Planned Vs Actual Schemes by Project ...... 24

List of Tables Table 1: Key informant's response on project's relevance ...... 10 Table 2: Beneficiaries distribution by scheme categories ...... 15 Table 3: Key informant's responses on efficiency ...... 23 Table 4: Key informant's responses with respect to the sustainability of schemes ...... 27

ix | P a g e

1. Introduction This report presents the findings from the final evaluation of the Community Infrastructure and Livelihood Recovery Program, hereinafter called 'CILRP or the programme' which was implemented in seven of the 14 worst-affected districts aftermath of the devastating 2015 earthquake in Nepal. The purpose of the evaluation is to include specific recommendations for future programming/interventions. As the project was ended on 31st December 2020, UNDP has commissioned the final evaluation to identify and document the achievements of project interventions, challenges, lessons learned and best practices. The evaluation has covered the achievements of the programme from the beginning in 2015 to the end of Dec 2020. The findings of the evaluation will provide guidance for the way forward for future course of action. Thus, this evaluation report has included specific recommendations for future programming/interventions. The primary audience or users of the evaluation are UNDP, funding agencies, the relevant government agencies viz. Ministry of Land Management, Co-operatives and Poverty Alleviation (MoLCPA), Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MoAD), Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration (MoFAGA) and Ministry of Finance (MoF), humanitarian agencies, international NGOs and civil society organizations. The key learning and results from this project will be used to design the similar projects in the future. Thus, they are particularly interested to learn lessons for future improvements, or to replicate good practices in future projects of similar kinds or for the extension of the existing programme as per the need. Hence, it is expected that the audiences will welcome critical findings and specific recommendations for future course of actions. The key areas of intervention of the evaluation are community infrastructures and livelihood initiatives. This report is organized into seven chapters. The first chapter covers brief introduction of the evaluation with rationale. The second chapter describes the intervention to be evaluated and the third chapter describes the purpose and scope of the evaluation. The evaluation approaches and methods including data collection methods, data analysis is described in chapter four. Detail findings are provided in chapter five. Good practices and lessons learned are captured in chapter six. The chapter seven draws the conclusion of the findings and provide the specific recommendations for future course of actions. Finally, the report has an Annex section at the end. 2. Description of the interventions 2.1 Background and rationale: The objective of the programme is to contribute in resilient and inclusive economic recovery through the rehabilitation of community infrastructures, improvement of livelihood and provide short term employment. The project was built on earlier experience of Livelihood Recovery for Peace (LRP) project which was implemented from 2009 to 2015 to improve the socio-economic status of ultra- poor and poor households and communities, enhancing social cohesion, and strengthening local institutions to respond to supporting livelihood initiatives at Mahottari, Sarlahi and Rautahat districts. As discussed earlier, the users of this evaluation are MoLCPA, MoAD, MoFAGA, MoF, humanitarian agencies, international NGOs and civil society organizations. This evaluation has assessed the merits of the evaluation methodology and understood the applicability of the evaluation results. The major outputs of the programme are (i) Community infrastructures rehabilitated/ constructed to help restore livelihoods and local economy and create immediate short-term employments, and (ii) basic livelihoods of excluded and vulnerable people restored, and their income generation opportunities enhanced. Programme implementation strategies include (i) project implementation is led by community (user committee) for leveraging of resources through collaboration with local municipalities/Government line agencies and I/NGO partners in cost sharing modality, (ii) strong partnership and collaboration with the local governments for sustainability and additional resources

1 | P a g e

mobilization, (iii) community-led decision making and implementation through capacity enhancement on recovery and resilience, (iv) integrated approach on small-scale community infrastructure and livelihood recovery, (v) cash-injection modality for short-term employment opportunities for local people and migrant workers under COVID-19 pandemic scenario, (vi) cost-effectiveness using local resources and materials, (vii) promotion of gender equality, women’s empowerment and social inclusion, with focus on persons with disability at all levels, leading to better social cohesion. The UNDAF/CPD Outcome 3 includes "by 2022, environmental management, sustainable recovery and reconstruction, and resilience to climate change and natural disaster are strengthen at all levels" and CPD Output 3.5 include "improved capacities of communities and government for resilient recovery and reconstruction". The cross-cutting issues addressed through the intervention, i.e., gender equality, human rights, marginalized groups and leaving no one behind which are well addressed in design as well as implementation. The project addressed 807,602 populations of 164,922 households through two different components viz. community infrastructures and livelihood initiatives. The project was run from June 2015 to December 2020. The total budget of the programme was USD 7.1 million. The political instability and shrinking economic opportunities in the country have led to migration of people, especially youth. A large number of youths are choosing to migrate to other countries in search of better employment. Whether living inside or outside the country, people are disappointed and increasingly their grievances and dissatisfactions are becoming more evident. Irrespective of the provision of equal treatment to all citizens in Constitution of Nepal, 2015, and signing of international human rights documents, people are suffering various discriminatory practices in terms of gender, race, caste, class, language, religion and geography. The adverse effect of climate change has also become an emerging challenge in recent years.

Following the 2015 earthquake, the government of Nepal re-instituted the Central Natural Disaster Relief Committee, followed by the National Emergency Operations Centre. By June 2015, donors had committed four billion USD for relief and early recovery. The earthquake occurred during a particularly sensitive time for the country, with major constitutional changes, and then the economic blockade of the Indian-Nepali border, which resulted in economic losses of around 30 billion Nepali Rupees and increased hardship for many citizens.3

2015 has been remarkable year in the Nepalese history because of earthquake and promulgation of Constitution of Nepal. Although national parliament elections have been held in more or less regular basis in Nepal, the local election took place after 16 years in 2017. With no local elected leader at local government level, there was a political vacuum. Disaster response had been side-lined by political transition, ideological and ethnic tension and frequent changes of government following the earthquake. Immediately after the disaster, the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) was established to oversee reconstruction. However, it took almost nine months to appoint someone to lead NRA despite the pressure from international and humanitarian agencies. The lack of local political leaders and frequent change in the leadership of NRA created chaos at the initial phase of the reconstruction process.

Nepal has not witnessed local election in past 16 years, and thus there was lack of representative local governance that hindered the post-earthquake response and reconstruction planning. With the political situation uncertain, foreign investors are reluctant to spend money in Nepal. Domestic industries are facing a lot of challenges due to the political situation4. According to Constitution of Nepal (2015), the unitary system of government was decided to change to a federal system. The three phases of election took place in May, June and September of 2017 respectively. These elections took

3 Scoping Study on ActionAid Nepal’s Community-Led Reconstruction Programme (CLRP), ActionAid Nepal (AAIN) and the Centre for Trust, Peace & Social Relations of Coventry University, 2016 4 http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/nepals-unending-political-instability/accessed on 14th May 2017

2 | P a g e

place while the CILRP’s was in the peak of implementation. The recovery activities had just started to run smoothly when these elections interrupted them. There were acute shortage of materials and labors for the projects. Lack of clarity of work within the federal, provincial and local government due to the change in the governing system further delayed the recovery. Inadequate staffs and confusion regarding their duties led to demotivation of the government officials. The electoral process lead to delay in the already slow government approval mechanism. The recovery activities were either moving slowly or halted, delaying the implementation process of the CILRP.

The issue of lack of trained human resource and unclear policies lead to poor coordination among the public and private sector making the implementation of the projects arduous. Furthermore, unnecessary influence of ‘Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority’ further discouraged the decision makers which ultimately slowing the recovery and reconstruction initiatives. In this national context, the post-earthquake recovery and reconstruction is conducted by government as well as national and International NGOs in a collaborative manner.

2.2 Programme context In the year 2015, Nepal faced two large-scale earthquakes, which hit 39 of the nation’s then 75 districts and affected nearly 8 million people. They killed nearly 10,000 and injured over 22,000 people. Fourteen districts in central and western hills were badly affected. A preliminary assessment is done aftermath of the earthquake revealed that the earthquakes disproportionately affected the poor and people living in rural areas. Families who lost an economically active member(s); families with persons with disabilities (PwDs), single women (widows), and elderly members; and internally displaced people after the earthquake were the most vulnerable and faced the greatest difficulty sustaining their livelihoods. Therefore, next to relief, restoration and rehabilitation of critical and productive infrastructures and improvement of livelihood interventions were crucial priorities of the government to help communities' access basic services and restore livelihood capitals. 2.3 The Programme Along with the Nepal Reconstruction Authority (NRA), different bilateral and multilateral programs and international non-government agencies joined hands to complement Nepal’s reconstruction mission in the earthquake-affected areas. UNDP, like other agencies, launched the Community Infrastructure and XX Livelihood Recovery Program, hereinafter called 'CILRP or the programme ', in seven of the 14 worst- affected districts5, namely Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Kavre, Nuwakot, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok (Figure 1). This programme was designed to contribute to Nepal's recovery initiatives. The UNDP designed and implemented this programme from June 2015 Figure 1: Earthquake affected districts to address the urgent needs of the most affected communities. The design was based on its earlier experiences in the Livelihood Recovery for Peace project, which implemented from 2009 to 2015 in three central Terai districts of Nepal: Mahottari, Sarlahi and Rautahat. This programme was funded by the Government of Mauritius,

5 The 14 Category A districts include Gorkha, Kathmandu, Bhaktapur, Lalitpur, Sindhupalchowk, Ramechhap, Dolakha, Nuwakot, Dhading, Rasuwa, Sindhuli, Okhaldhunga, Makwanpur, and Kavrepalanchowk. The 9 Category B districts are Sangja, Chitwan, Kaski, Tanahu, Khotang, Solukhumbu, Udayapur, Bhojpur and Lumjung.

3 | P a g e

International Medical Corps (IMC), Bridge Head Limited (BHF), Qatar Red Crescent (QRC), Royal Thai Government, Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) and UNDP’s core fund. The programme performance was assessed against the overall results framework of the programme (figure 2). A list of projects with project specific details (outputs, outcome, duration, source of fund etc.) is in Annex-19.

CILRP was launched as an initiative for recovery and reconstruction to stabilize livelihoods of the disaster affected vulnerable population. The programme has been implemented in seven earthquake affected districts (Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Kavre, Nuwakot, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok) since June. The project was directly implemented through the Micro-Capital Grants/Low Value Grants with the local NGO partners.

The main objective of the programme was to contribute in resilient and inclusive economic recovery through the rehabilitation of community infrastructures, improvement of livelihood and provide short term employment.

At national level, the project established strong collaboration and co-ordination with MoLCPA, MoAD, MoFAGA and MoF. MoLCPA was lead ministry and co-chair the project executive board. At the local level, project had strong collaboration with ward offices, urban/rural municipalities of the programmed districts. Local Farmers’ Groups, Women’s Groups, Cooperatives, Tole Lane Organizations, relevant NGOs and stakeholders were coordinated and included in the project planning and implementation. Whilst, Handicap International (INGO) was partnered to reach special needs of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in 2019. Coordination with local NGOs working in the same area was encouraged for leveraging resources and avoiding duplication. This built synergy among different stakeholders and maximized the benefits to the local people and optimized the resources.

The project has been implemented in 48 municipalities of 7 districts (Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Kavre, Nuwakot, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok). A total of 1,395 schemes were implemented; built or renovated 789 community infrastructures of diverse types, supported 536 livelihood interventions, implemented 16 DRR training events, and 54 short term employment generation activities. Among 1,395 schemes, a total of 182 schemes were as part of COVID-19 response using different sources of funding. In Nuwakot, Gorkha, Rasuwa, Dolakha and Sindhupalchowk districts, a total of 54 community infrastructures6 (as part of COVID-19 response) provided nearly 42 thousand person-days of employment

A total of 630,172 earthquake affected people were benefitted from the project interventions. The total approved budget for the project was USD 11,547,863 since its commencement of earthquake response activities in June 2015. As of December 2020, the total USD 11,491,945.48 has been spent.

6 COVID-19 response activities were run in Nuwakot, Dolakha, Rasuwa Sindhupalchok, Gorkha, Dolakha, Surkhet, Okhaldhunga and Solukhumbu districts.

4 | P a g e

Figure 2: Schematic presentation of Programme results framework 3. Evaluation scope and objectives 3.1 Evaluation scope The evaluation assessed the relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the project interventions in seven working districts (Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Kavre, Nuwakot, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok) between June 2015 and December 2020. In addition, the evaluation also assesses whether the project results were in the right direction towards contributing to resilient and inclusive economic recovery through the rehabilitation of community infrastructures and improvement of livelihood in the project areas. In addition, the evaluation has also accessed the relevancy and effectiveness of the immediate response to COVID-19 through cash for work.

3.2 Evaluation objectives The overall objective of the evaluation was to assess the results and approaches of the project interventions. The evaluation assessed results against output targets and the project’s contribution to higher level outcome results (changes in socio economic status through the project interventions and), assessed the implementation approaches, and challenges encountered as well as identify the key lessons learned and make specific recommendations for the future course of actions. Specifically, the objectives were to: • ascertain the achievements of the project and its relevancy, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact including synergies with other UNDP support efforts (coherence). • assess the effectiveness of the livelihood recovery activities provided to the poorest and most vulnerable households to enhance their livelihoods and assess how these activities were tied up with the community infrastructure. • review and assess the risks and opportunities (in terms of resource mobilization, synergy and areas of interventions) for the project in future. • assess the engagement of the municipal and ward stakeholders in the project, and their understanding, including financial and other commitments for the sustainability of activities.

5 | P a g e

• assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the fund flow mechanism with the local NGOs and User Committee for implementation of project activities. • assess the comparative advantages and disadvantages of two different implementation modalities (fund flow mechanism) i.e. project’s general approach (implementation through user committee in cost sharing with local municipalities) vs. open bidding process to select a vendor for health post construction (KOICA supported Health post construction approach). • appraise the recently repurposing response to COVID-19 affected vulnerable and daily wage earner migrant returnee workers to provide short-term employment as a socioeconomic and livelihood recovery support.

The main audience of this evaluation report are Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation, Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Local Government (Municipality Offices and Ward Offices), Local NGO Partners, and User communities of the project's districts. Evaluation findings (lessons learned and way forward) will be used to formulate similar programme in the future.

3.3 Evaluation criteria and evaluation questions Evaluators followed the OECD-DAC’s revised evaluation criteria viz. relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, impact and sustainability along with cross-cutting criteria viz. partnership, GESI and human rights (refer annex 3). The guiding questions outlined are outlined in annex-4

4. Evaluation methods and approach The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the UNDP Evaluation Guidelines 2019. Evaluators used a mixed method. In order to cover the scope and spirit of the ToR, the evaluators integrated qualitative and quantitative tools and techniques but focused more on qualitative assessment to enrich the data collection process and develop more insight into the project's accomplishments and the lessons learned. DAC-OECD evaluation criteria i.e. Relevance, Coherence, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability were used to assess the performance of the project (figure 3). The detail evaluation questions are in annex-4.

Figure 3: DAC Evaluation criteria The evaluation approach included (i) mobilization, (ii) desk study, (iii) instrument design, (iv) fieldwork, (v) data analysis and interpretation, and (vi) report writing and finalization. Qualitative information was collected using participatory tools and techniques like focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs). A total of 15 schemes in four districts were visited during the evaluation fieldwork. Criteria used for project sites selection and key informants was to ensure diversity of interventions and representative opinion/experiences of project stakeholders. In order to acquire personal and detailed opinions about project interventions, a total of 15 FGDs and 36 KIIs were conducted (Annex 2 and Annex 3). Along with collecting qualitative information, evaluators used quantitative information through the project's generated secondary data provided by CILRP (Annexes 7-18). The issues related to gender equality, vulnerability and social inclusion were addressed through thorough focus group discussions. Data-collection and analysis method was designed in such a way that it integrated gender, use of disaggregated data and outreach to diverse stakeholders’ groups. Though there was a risk of primary data collection from the project's real beneficiaries in the COVID-

6 | P a g e

19 context, but evaluation team adhered the safety protocols/standard of Nepal government and collected the empirical data from the fieldwork.

Evaluators have participated in an introductory meeting with the UNDP CO and project team to get an overview of the project, particularly its context, key accomplishments, challenges, bottlenecks and learning. This information helped the evaluators to review the project's documents from different angles. Initial discussion with the UNDP further helped to clarify expectations and reach an agreement on the methods of evaluation (field work modalities and number of sites to sample).

4.1 Data collection procedures and instruments

4.1.1 Secondary data collection Desk review: The evaluators have acquired relevant documents from CILRP team and review them thoroughly to understand how the project was designed and implemented. Evaluators will review all project-related documents before the fieldwork. Reviewing the project and background documents provided helped reveal basic facts and information, enough to develop an initial impression, while the field mission has served to verify these basic facts, fill in missing data and learn the opinions of the beneficiaries, all steps that will help us interpret the facts. The triangulation of data has allowed for the validation of information through cross-verification from two or more sources. Evaluators have reviewed Project proposals, Annual work-plans, Project progress reports, Annual project reports, Donor reports, Minutes of the project executive board (PEB), Project database, categorically. The evaluators have also reviewed “UNDP Guidance for Conducting Terminal Evaluations, “UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results,” “Updated Guidance on Evaluation” (2012), and the “UNDP Discussion Paper: Innovations in Monitoring & Evaluating Results” (2013) in order to get additional ideas. 4.1.2 Primary data collection Focus group discussions (FGDs): FGDs were conducted with (i) users' committees, (ii) beneficiaries of the project, and (iii) women only to gauge the progress and key changes made as a result of the project. While selecting respondents for FGDs, the evaluators have considered gender, ethnicity and various other social distinctions to make sure they get a representative view. The views of direct beneficiaries and stakeholders were recorded and presented as direct quotations in the evaluation report.

FGDs with recipient of CfW scheme: The evaluators have carried y out two in-depth FGDs with CfW recipient in Nuwakot and Sindhupalchowk districts to access the relevancy and effectiveness of the immediate response to COVID-19. Analysis of relevance and effectiveness of CfW, overall conclusion and recommendations were developed and put in different section/sub-heading of the report.

Non-participant observation and SWOT analysis: During the FGDs, evaluators have also used non- participant observation methods (observing the tangible results of infrastructure development) to gain a better perspective about the project’s progress and compentency (SWOT) analysis.

Most significant change: As part of FGDs, the evaluators have also assessed the project’s achievements methodically and compare them against the indicators using the “most significant change7” method.

Review of case studies: Using a few thematic case studies already developed by the project, the evaluators have assessed the impact of the project on the beneficiaries, particularly the benefits they accrued from the project and the visible changes in their lives and livelihoods. Evaluators have reviewed at least 50% women related cases to gauze the changes made in their lives and livelihood as a result of the project.

7 Rick Davies and Jess Dart. The Most Significant Change (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use. 2004. (available at www.mande.co.uSumary k/docs/MSC Guide.htm)

7 | P a g e

Assessment of five livelihoods capitals: To gauge the effectiveness of the livelihood interventions, the evaluators have used the sustainable livelihood framework, which considers five types of capital: social, human, financial, physical and natural8.

Key informant interview: The evaluators have conducted key informant's interviews (KIIs) with local government stakeholders and the project's partners using virtual methods (Skype/Viber/WhatsApp/email/telephone) if it is not possible to meet them physically. They have also carried out an email survey with partner NGOs to capture their perceptions of the overall accomplishments of the project, challenges and measures taken to mitigate them, and key learning. KIIs helped to identify the key lessons and test the reliability and validity of the data collected from other sources. The list of KIIs in Kathmandu and at the project and local government level is given below.

Kathmandu level a. UNDP CO • Policy Advisor; Inclusive Economic Growth Portfolio • Portfolio Manager; Inclusive Economic Growth • Policy Advisor-Resilience b. PEB members c. Relevant bilateral and multilateral agencies d. Local government level • Netrawori, Dhading • Panchakanya, Nuwakot • Roshi Kavre • Mandandeupur, Kavre • Melamchi, Sindhupalchowk • Helambu, Sindhupalchowk e. Project level • CILRP Project Manager and other relevant Project staffs f. Staff of local NGO Partners • Action Nepal, CDC-Nepal, CDECF, CDF, CSN, CSRC, ECARDS Dolakha, ICDC, LACCoS, MANEKOR Society Nepal, NFGF, REIS, RUDEC, SDSC, SJASK, SSICDC, SUK Nepal and SWAS, g. Other projects • Project Manager; CMDP • Project Manager; VCDP • Project Manager; MEDPA-TA

The evaluators have reviewed progress reports, extract relevant data, and present it in a logical order in thematic tables. To fill quantitative data gaps, some blank tables were developed and filled with the support of project staff and later validated during KIIs and FGDs. The evaluators have used the project's MIS database and analyze the quantitative data as much as available.

8 Chambers and Conway, 1992; DfID, 1999

8 | P a g e

4.2 Data analysis and development of evaluation report The findings of the evaluation were triangulated using different data. Two or more complimentary yet distinct data collection methods and types of data were gathered for this purpose. In order to get the reliable data from the multiple source, the evaluators consulted different stakeholder groups (men and women, different social groups, etc.) based on the key evaluation questions. For qualitative analysis, the evaluators have triangulated the results and the outcomes of the project using a thematic approach and the content analysis9 tool. To do so, the responses were classified and similar responses were grouped together to identify the key issues and themes of concern to respondents. As there were no concrete baseline as well as outcome and impact level indicators of the programme, it was difficult to collect appropriate data and their thorough data analysis. Nevertheless, quantitative data were analyzed using simple Excel tools. The qualitative and quantitative data collected using different tools and techniques were tabulated, synthesized, and analyzed before arriving at conclusions.

4.3 Performance standards The evaluators used ‘a five-point scale’ against the DAC evaluation criteria to assess the performance of the programme. o Highly satisfactory (1): The project performed well overall against each of the evaluation questions. o Satisfactory (2): The project performed well overall against majority of the evaluation questions but there were room for improvement. o Moderately satisfactory (3): The project performed moderately against almost half of the evaluation questions and there were rooms for improvement. o Somehow satisfactory (4): The project performed poorly overall against majority of the evaluation questions and there were immediate and major steps that could have been taken for improvement. o Not satisfactory (5): The project performed poorly in almost all the evaluation questions and there were immediate and significant steps that could have been taken for improvement

4.4 Stakeholder participation Relevant stakeholders were participated in this evaluation during data and information collection. They were treated as key informants. Communications were made throughout the evaluation process for their quality time, and their inputs.

4.5 Ethical consideration The evaluation was carried out with serious consideration that none of the caste, creed, religion and social class was intentionally pointed. It has ensured strict adherence to human subject research ethics related to anonymity, confidentiality, and informed consent during the evaluation.

4.6 Background information on evaluators Two independent evaluators- Dr Dhruba Gautam and Mr Pustak Raj Ojha jointly completed this evaluation. Dr. Gautam is from Disaster Risk Reduction background (who lead this evaluation), and Mr Ojha is from livelihood and agriculture sectors. Both evaluators hold over two decade long national and international experiences. Combination of DRR and livelihoods expertise with extensive experiences on project/programme evaluation of different scale and scope was a unique opportunity to accomplish this task. Both evaluators were well acquainted of the project locations and the stakeholders which was an additional advantage to complete the task even in the difficult situation of COVID-19 pandemic.

9This is the technique usually used to analyse qualitative data.

9 | P a g e

4.7 Major limitations COVID-19-related challenges are the key limitations of this evaluation. Field work was also impacted to gather larger number of participants in group discussions and interaction meeting. At the project level, the project's quantitative data were not adequately refined using SMART indicators at outcome or impact level. Project specific logical framework and indicator specific baseline value were not available which also limited the comparative analysis of the findings. As much as possible, the gaps in quantitative data were filled using a systematic review of the project's secondary information by developing dummy/black tables and requesting project team to fill latest data.

5. Evaluation findings 5.1 Relevance Relevance was evaluated in terms of (i) the overall design and approaches of the project, (ii) Nepal's existing plans and policies, (iii) selection of project districts, (iv) selection of project' beneficiaries, (v) recovery needs, (vi) the need and priorities of targeted people, (vii) approach to partnerships with local governments, and (viii) re-programming to address COVID-19 impacts. Responding to evaluation

XX questions among 36 Table 1: Key informant's response on project's relevance key informants, 29 To what extent ‘CILRP was relevant to the post-earthquake local context’? (N=36 ) (81%) respondent Highly Relevant Partially relevant Not relevant Don’ t Know said that the project relevant was highly relevant N=29 (81%) N=7 (19%) N=0 (0%) N=0 (0%) N=0 (0%) to the context, and 7 (19%) opined that it is relevant stating that if the project was implemented immediately after earthquake relief, the relevance of the project would have been much higher (Table 1). a. Relevance of the project's overall design and approaches The project's design and approaches were ‘highly relevant’ in the post-earthquake context as they addressed the crucial recovery needs of the 2015 earthquake-affected people of the country’s seven most impacted districts. The review of programme's progress and monitoring reports revealed that the approach of GESI has been mainstreaming in design as well as implementation and monitoring/supervision. The programme's approach of keeping beneficiary people (women, single women, PwDs, and people from other marginal communities) in front while designing the actions, developing the plan, preparing implementation plans and setting monitoring was highly commendable. The programmatic interventions—community infrastructure and livelihood recovery schemes—were relevant as the earthquake not only damaged personal buildings but also destroyed community facilities and livelihoods assets. The earthquake also impacted local economies, adversely affecting market access, employment opportunities and the operation of small and medium enterprises. The renovation of earthquake-affected irrigation canals, drinking water schemes and the construction of market facilities were rightly identified to restoring local economies. Community infrastructures were selected based on the seven sectors10 identified by the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA). The alignment between the project’s key components and activities was good. Activities were highly relevant because they yielded tangible outputs within a short period, generated quick impacts, reduced women's drudgery, increased income and fostered social harmony. However, not all activities were completed within the stipulated time frame because of inadequate skilled human resources available at the district, a delay in selecting schemes and completing their designs and cost estimates, and limited staff to deal with a large volume of work. In addition, COVID-19 also adversely affected in the completion of some of the schemes in 2020 due to unavailability of construction materials and limited monitoring and supervision of work. As not all livelihood schemes were not part of the annual plans of local government, it took additional time to select need-based demand-driven livelihood schemes. b. Relevance of project in terms of existing plans and policies

10 Seven sectors include rural transport; water supply and sanitation; irrigation; electricity; community buildings; social infrastructure; and solid waste infrastructure.

10 | P a g e

The project activities were guided by Post Disaster Recovery Framework (PDRF) and PDNA. It also aligned with the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR, 2016-2030) and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, 2015-2030). It addressed the third priority of SFDRR, investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience and the fourth priority, enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response. Although CILRP was guided by PDRF, it has also incorporated "build back better" principles in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. The project's outcomes will contribute to achieving the SDGs, especially SDGs 1 (no poverty), 2 (zero hunger), 5 (gender equality), 6 (clean water and sanitation), 8 (decent work and economic growth), and 10 (reduction in inequality). The project was in the spirit of the 14th (FY 2073-2075) and 15th (FY 2076-2081) periodic plans, which focused on poverty reduction and sustainable economic development. The goal of the 15th periodic plan is "to increase the economic growth rate to 10.5% and eradicate absolute poverty (reduce to 0%) by 2100 B.S. The project has also contributed to Nepal's goal of providing drinking water to all ('one house one tap'). The project was also grounded in the real spirit of the Post-Disaster Recovery Framework (2016-2020) as it provided systematic, structured and prioritized actions to contribute to the recovery and reconstruction of Nepal. The project is also in line with the NRA act and guidelines, both of which were promulgated in 2015. These policies mandated that, during reconstruction, all physical infrastructures damaged by the earthquake would be rebuilt in a planned, systematic and timely manner and that poor and vulnerable families would be targeted. The project also addresses the key values of the Reconstruction and Resettlement Policy (2016), which is the foundational document that guides all NRA activities.

The project is congruent with the Rural Energy Policy Nepal (2006)11, which focuses on the establishment of improved watermill technology, the upgrading of water mills, the provision of hulling and grinding services in rural areas, and the rehabilitation of micro-hydro schemes. The project also contributes to the National Agriculture Policy (2004) and Agriculture Development Strategy (2015- 2035), which aims to increase food and nutrition security, poverty reduction, competitiveness, higher and more equitable income of rural households, and strengthen farmers’ rights. At the programme level, it has collaborated the Prime Minister Agriculture Modernization Project (PMAMP, 2016), which aimed to modernize and commercialize the agricultural sector through agricultural/local produce processing and marketing support thereby increase farmers’ incomes. CILRP has also collaborated with Prime Minister Employment Programme (PMEP) to generate short term employment. CILRP is in line with the central goals of the (i) UNDP policy of leave no one behind (2015), and (ii) UNDP GESI policy (2017). c. Relevance of CILRP's selection of districts and municipality The seven project districts12, Gorkha, Dhading, Nuwakot, Sindhupalchowk, Rasuwa, Karve and Dolakha, were among the “category A” districts in terms of the scale of devastation wrought by the earthquake of 2015; thus, their selection is highly relevant. Despite political influences and the interest of local government representatives on concentrating the project in their own constituencies, CILRP tried to reach geographically remote areas to some extent. The gradual phasing in of the districts, three districts in the beginning (Dolakha, Kavrepalanchok and Sindhupalchok), then four districts (Nuwakot, Rasuwa, Dhading and Gorkha), was also relevant because it provided opportunities to design new projects and replicate the good practices and learning of earlier projects. For example, the approach of community water taps was replaced by the "one house one tap" approach. Partnership with local governments was started only after 2018, when local governments were elected.

The cash-for-work (CfW) scheme focused on Nuwakot and Sindhupalchowk because active units of the PMEP had prepared an unemployment list and selected CfW schemes13. In Melamchi of Sindhupalchok, local people were involved by using a list prepared for the CfW scheme whereas in

11 http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/rural-energy-policy-2006.pdf 12 CILRP has worked with 55 municipalities of 10 districts that include COVID response area. 13 We worked in 22 municipalities of 8 districts viz. Gorkha, Nuwakot, Rasuwa, Dolakha, Sindhupalchok, Okhaldhunga, Solukhumbu and Surkhet for COVID Response. 11 | P a g e

Hemabu Rural Municipality of Sindhupalchowk, people on an already prepared list as well as returnees (who lost their employment as a result of COVID-19) were involved in CfW schemes. d. Relevance of beneficiary selection/criteria CILRP employed the local government’s project selection approach rather than UNDP’s own criteria in order to enhance government accountability to its citizens. Projects were selected through a bottom-up planning process which might have stimulated the local people's participation in the project's work. CILRP focused on community participation from the beginning of project selection, design, implementation, monitoring, and reporting to ensure their role in decision making process which lead to community ownership and sustainability. This approach helped to increase access to services and meet the unmet needs of communities. Additional efforts were made to meet the special needs and priorities of women, dalit and PwDs. For example, 202 PwDs of Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok districts received individual-level support through the provision of sewing machines, start-up materials for vending, and other inputs in collaboration with Handicap International. Another example, targeted to women, was training and start-up support to produce reusable sanitary pads in Nuwakot. Most livelihood schemes employed a group approach.

The indicators used to select families for livelihood interventions included families whose houses had been destroyed, those that were ultra-poor, those with no income source, those having members with a disability or chronic disease, those with elderly members, and single women-managed families. The project’s approach ensured that the most vulnerable and the least capable groups were targeted. Communities’ ideas and experiences were used during project design as well as during the subsequent decision-making process including implementation. However, it would have been much better if in- depth vulnerability and market assessments had been carried out thoroughly prior to designing livelihoods interventions. For example, women in Panchakaya, Nuwakot, were provided tailoring training without first assessing the market potential and no trainee has started doing business yet. e. Relevance of focusing on recovery needs PDNA identified that the 2015 earthquake pushed around 2.5% to 3.5% of people into poverty (2015/16), meaning that at least 700,000 additional people fell below the poverty line. The earthquake also impacted the livelihoods of 2.28 million households and 5.6 million workers and resulted in the loss of 94 million workdays and US $170 million in personal income. In this context, the design of CILRP was highly relevant as it helped contribute toward increasing families’ incomes. The role of the NRA and other bilateral and multilateral agencies was instrumental in reconstruction work, which focused largely on the construction of private houses and major infrastructures like roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals. Small-scale community infrastructures, which are generally ignored by larger- scale programs, were included in the CILRP, a fact which enhanced its relevance. There was initially an acute gap in fulfilling the recovery needs of local people through small-scale infrastructures and livelihood schemes but CILRP helped to reduce this recovery gap by constructing 789 community infrastructures and running 536 livelihood schemes benefitting 160,965 families (383,955 men and 416,318 women). However, the number of earthquake-damaged livelihood infrastructures renovated by CILRP was relatively small in terms of the total infrastructure renovated. The agricultural tools and machinery provided by the project, therefore, were highly appropriate, as agriculture is gradually being feminized as men increasingly migrate abroad for employment. While identifying the recovery needs of the earthquake affected families, GESI approach was taken into consideration adequately so that it was possible to identify the project's activities targeted to economic empowerment of women, PwDs, poor and marginalized sections.

The project’s selection of activities to boost economic opportunities, including tourism-related infrastructure support in Rasuwa along renovated trekking routes, irrigation canal renovation on cultivable land in Dhading, Nuwakot, Kavre and Sindhupalchowk; and the provision of a cardamom dryer in Nuwakot were all very relevant to harnessing location-specific opportunities. Similar project support was made in other four districts viz. Gorkha, Nuwakot, Sindhupalchok and Dolakha.

12 | P a g e

f. Relevance to addressing the needs and priorities of targeted people The project's activities addressed the real needs of the people it targeted (women and marginalized communities) because it designed local resource, skills and knowledge based activities. For example, in Kavre, the areas under the local governments of Temal and Roshi are water shortage areas; thus, there is a chronic water shortage problem. Drinking water and irrigation schemes became partially or completely defunct due to earthquake-induced water source depletion. Drinking water was made available through gravity systems but there was still a water shortage. The project addressed the needs of earthquake-affected people by addressing early recovery needs and improving lives and wellbeing during the initial years (2015-2017) of the programme. After 2018, CILRP focus was more on livelihoods promotion via productive community infrastructure and value addition/business promotion. It was equally commendable that resources were provided to those in need, irrespective of geography, social standing, economic class, gender, or age. Stakeholders claimed that the project had reached previously unreached segments of the population. The fact that the selection criteria varied slightly in different districts indicated that location-specific criteria were used, an approach that helped to address the real needs of earthquake-affected people. For example, WASH support in Gorkha district focused to marginalized Muslim community while selecting the project whereas in Nuwakot, the health facilities construction schemes were selected based on the proximity of access to health service and population of the service area.

Following the earthquake, the number of affected people was large and their requirements overwhelming, but the project attempted to meet only the most important needs of its target group. First, it allocated its resources strategically to reach target groups. Second, it chose its partner NGOs carefully, only after considering their capacities, resources, and expertise as well as the need to address a variety of needs, ranging from community infrastructures to livelihood interventions. Interviews with the target group suggested that the services provided by the project did indeed meet their needs. g. Relevance of the partnership approach with local governments After the local election 2017, partnership with local governments began to enhance local government's ownership and to complement local government-led initiatives. Partnership with local government has been one of the major approaches of the project. More specific examples are improving basic water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) related facilities in the earthquake-affected communities in Gorkha Municipality and constructing health facilities in Nuwakot as both projects were local government's high priority projects. The project complemented schemes selected from local governments’ planning processes and endorsed by local government councils. For this reason, local governments had assumed ownership of the project. This strategy also contributed to enhance capacity of the newly formed local government. h. Relevance for repurposing to address the COVID-19 context CILRP was successful in addressing the needs and priorities of the target groups and communities in the changing conditions of COVID-19. The readjustment of project and reallocation of resources (USD 300,000) in COVID-19 response through CfW in 7 districts viz. Nuwakot, Sindhupalchok, Gorkha, Dolakha, Surkhet, Okhaldhunga and Solukhumbu districts covering 8,215 families (19,905 men and 18,906 women) was highly relevant. CfW schemes helped to improve the physical conditions of rural roads, foot trails, irrigation canals, and other infrastructures. Amidst the COVID-19 crisis, many people, particularly daily wage earners, lost earning opportunities due to the prolonged lockdown. The CfW scheme was suitably designed to target migrant workers, people from poor and marginalized families, daily wage laborers and families with single women, PwDs, elderly people and jobless people who were seeking employment opportunities locally, at their doorstep. CfW schemes created short term employment and income which further contributed in the fulfillment of immediate household need. The formulation of social security-led plans, a socio-economic recovery package, and a recovery strategy were instrumental to securing the social and economic rights of the most-at-risk populations and to scaling up social protection to those threatened by COVID-19.

13 | P a g e

5.2 Effectiveness a. CILRP's key achievements Despite its short tenure of each of its phase, CILRP was successful in delivering all its targeted outputs except for a few exceptional cases. Of the total 1,395 schemes, the project had to withdraw only eight or nine schemes in 2020 due to time constraints (sometimes vendor unable to provide required technology and or tools), late approval from local governments, or the effects of the COVID-19 lockdown. The project successfully built or renovated 789 community infrastructures of diverse types (target was 485), built 536 livelihood infrastructures (target was 251), implemented 16 DRR training events (target was 45), and 54 CfW schemes (target was 54) (figure 4) from different sources of funding. In project districts, under the funding support from IMC, a total of 16 DRR focused interventions including 11 events of training were imparted benefitting 810 people (407 women). Accomplishing nearly 1,400 schemes was itself an exemplary achievement. The reasons behind its success included intensive and rigorous technical backstopping, supervision and monitoring, generous grant from respective donors, a high level of commitment from local governments in project selection and allocation of the required matching funds, the earlier social footprint of partner NGOs, and dedicated user committees (UCs) and local people.

In general, CILRP has aimed to improve both the living conditions and the incomes of earthquake-

affected people including poor, vulnerable, XX and marginalized community people. CfW, 54 , Consultation with the project's stakeholders 4% in the sampled districts, Kavre, Sindhupalchowk, Dhading and Nuwakot, revealed that the improvement of the living LI, 536 , conditions and incomes of affected people 38% was assured through (i) increasing CI, 789 , accessibility of basic services: heath and 57% drinking water schemes, irrigation and market facilities, (ii) creating local DRR, 16 , employment, (iii) generating income, and (iv) 1% contributing to health and hygiene by making water available. CILRP addressed the special needs of poor, single women and PwDs (traditionally excluded groups) through Figure 4: Types of schemes livelihood and CfW schemes. The programme's data revealed that from the community infrastructures, a total of 50573 men, 63140 women, 202 PwDs and 723 single women were benefitted. Similarly, from the livelihood initiatives, a total of 10372 men, 12317 women, 46 PwDs and 184 women headed households were benefitted. In order to reach the previously unreached section, CILRP also practiced affirmative action. Programme progress report revealed that with this novel approach, the project improved aaran (blacksmith workshop) targeting youth blacksmith families in Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Kavre, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok District. Similarly, pickle-making, sanitary pad-making, tailoring, Dhaka taan (knitting and weaving),) and many other activities were targeted for women. A crystal jewelry-making scheme was focused on Muslim women in Gorkha District whereas pottery schemes were targeted at Kumal pottery-making) communities to capitalize on their traditional skills and occupations. PwD-focused scheme included vegetable farming in poly- houses and tailoring shops. Altogether 202 PwDs benefited at the individual level in collaboration with Handicap International. In Ajirkot-4 of Gorkha, CILRP also supported the construction of a disabled- friendly water tap. Every community building built under CILRP has a ramp for wheelchair users.

During the COVID-19 crisis, many people, particularly people working in the informal sector, lost their jobs, or were otherwise greatly impacted. CILRP, therefore, designed CfW schemes jointly with local governments to provide short-term employment, mostly for daily wage workers and migrant

14 | P a g e

returnees. Within the last four months, 54 CfW schemes were implemented in Nuwakot, Rasuwa, Dolakha, Gorkha and Sindhupalchowk districts. Together they provided more than nearly 42 thousand person-day employment (equivalent to USD 262,521 cash transferred). Among the total people who received short-term employment under CfW schemes, 84% were men and 16% were women. Under the CfW schemes, agricultural roads and foot trails were renovated with stone paving and retaining walls, dry walls, and storm catch-up drains were constructed in the strategic locations. CfW Katunje Motor Road Maintenance and Drainage Improvement Scheme, Melamchi-11, Sindhupalchowk, and Kalchhe-Dandagaun Foot Trail Scheme, Panchakanya-1, Nuwakot, targeted poor and vulnerable people and aimed to serve as a social protection scheme helping them to cope with extreme conditions and build community assets. These schemes provided locals with improved connectivity to nearby market centers for the sale and purchase of agricultural produce as well as access to education and healthcare. Those who were consulted during the evaluation admired the fact that CfW schemes helped to fill gaps in meeting immediate needs by providing temporary employment. The amount received from these schemes helped families to procure food and pay school fees, purchase household items, afford medical treatment, and even to start small scale income-generating activities like goat farming. b. Reached previously unreached sections CILRP reached more than 167,000 households from different communities across the seven districts

Mr. Som Bahadur Tamang from Panchakanya Rural Municipality, Ward No. 3 was living in Kathmandu as a seasonal wage labour before COVID-19 lockdown. After lockdown was imposed, he lost his job and returned home. He started working as an unskilled labour for the Deurali foot trail CfW scheme so that he could meet the daily needs of his family. From the wages he earned from the scheme, he was able to save enough to start goat rearing. "If such employment opportunities were available locally I wouldn’t have to leave my family and work outside of my village," said Som. affected by the 2015 earthquake. The largest percentage (56%) of households reached by CILRP were from Janajati communities. The proportion of Dalit households reached was 9%. A total of 430,671 (52% women) and 398,067 (48% men) benefited from the CILRP interventions. Among the total households benefited, 7,765 (5%) were headed by single women (Table 2).

Table 2: Beneficiaries distribution by scheme categories Scheme Total HH Beneficiaries HH by ethnicity Single PwD Beneficiary population sex Total category Benefited Dalit Janajati Others Headed Female Male Population Women _HH CfW 6,586 357 4,966 1,263 214 102 16,925 16,914 33,839 CI 126,895 10,974 70,283 45,638 5,575 3,769 336,551 312,961 649,512 DRR 400 7 307 86 9 10 407 403 810 LI 45,591 5,087 26,266 14,760 2,657 1,761 115,468 102,972 218,440 Total 179,472 16,425 101,822 61,747 8,455 5,642 469,351 433,250 902,601 Source: CILRP records, 2020

While significant achievements were made in delivering community infrastructure and livelihoods recovery, there was time-lapse between municipal planning process and project selection as a result of the short project cycle of CILRP. CILRP selected its schemes from the local government's priority list which are largely influenced by the interest of the local leaders hence may not fully address the priority of the most vulnerable and excluded section of the society. There were still some gaps in reaching the unreached population due to limited resources and influence of local leadership in schemes selection. Despite the enormous efforts of CILRP, some projects have been politically influenced, a fact which was difficult to avoid in municipal partnership. The selection of marginalized people from poverty pockets was not possible as CILRP took up projects already selected by local governments.

15 | P a g e

c. Effectiveness of the beneficiary feedback system Meetings and participatory review-and-reflections provided some space for local people to share their issues and concerns as well as to provide feedback and suggestions about the schemes. That feedback was accommodated during the design as well as the subsequent implementation stage, where appropriate. For example, in Temal of Kavre, a scheme of cooperative building was changed in response to the beneficiaries’ feedback and suggestions. In Melamchi, Sindhupalchowk, local people claimed that a beneficiary feedback system was in place during the pre-feasibility study, the survey and the design phase. Although CILRP's activities have been guided by PDRF hence more focus was given to socio-economic recovery, business creation and livelihoods promotion, it also included disaster/climate risk components in its designs and subsequent implementation in a limited scale. It followed the revised building codes of the Nepal government while renovating community buildings to make them earthquake resistant. It also used the guidelines developed by the government departments: Irrigation, Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads, Water supply and sanitation and Agriculture while designing irrigation canals, drinking water systems, rustic stores, cardamom dryers, and other schemes. Protection work was built-in to ensure the safety of water sources, water tanks, and irrigation ponds. In order to reduce the impacts of landslides, especially at high altitudes like in Langtang of Rasuwa, measures like slope stabilization, gabion protection and bioengineering were implemented. To protect the environment, a proper dumping site was constructed in touristic areas of Rasuwa and Dolakha. J-hooks and other features were included in corrugated galvanized iron (CGI)-roofed houses to reduce the impacts of windstorms. d. Effectiveness of the project's delivery mechanism In terms of delivering good-quality activities on time, CILRP put enormous effort into mobilizing resources from local governments. Social mobilization and technical support by partner NGOs and technical supervision by local governments as well as by CILRP was a good combination. Tripartite agreements among local governments, the UNDP, and UCs with local NGOs as community facilitators have helped to increase the transparency of project delivery as well as the quality of the infrastructure built. The fact that CILRP complemented gaps in local government’s technical human resources was recognized and appreciated by the local government. CILRP model of intervention has been adopted by some local governments, e.g. Dupcheshwor and Kakani Rural Municipalities of Nuwakot district in in their regular development works.

CILRP worked as a collaborating partner with local governments to help improve their capacity to mobilize resources. Since local governments allocate their limited resources to several projects to address community demands brought forth through the ward-level planning process, the projects of local governments often remained incomplete due to an insufficiency of resources. For example, in Kavre, a community building in Temal was completed with the project's support though it had been incomplete for years. In this context, additional resources provided by CILRP not only helped to complete projects initiated by the local government but also helped them to use those resources effectively.

The project reports and data revealed that the majority of the projects were completed on time. Emergence of COVID-19, seven-eight activities were reported by partner NGO not completed on time as a result of travel restrictions and shortage of materials. Consultations with project stakeholders revealed that short project cycle (only 6 months) also impacted the completion of the activities on time and urged the project to design future projects lasting at least 12 months to ensure the institutionalization of the users’ committees. For example, in Temal of Kavre, the task of lift drinking water scheme was delayed due to travel restriction induced from COVID-19. The physical verification during the field visit revealed that the quality of schemes that the evaluation team visited was, in general, good. e. Interconnectivity between community infrastructure and livelihoods The majority of livelihood recovery activities were tied to community infrastructure. Community infrastructure also contributed to enhancing livelihoods. For example, the Arukhark Irrigation System,

16 | P a g e

Melamchi-11, Sindhupalchowk, and the Barbote-Kunduletar-Thopal Khola Irrigation Scheme, Nuwakot, helped to diversify and intensify crops. The Thangsingbesi drinking water scheme, Roshi-7, Kavre, saved the time it took to fetch water, thereby helping beneficiaries to scale up their income- generating activities using surplus time in kitchen gardening, poultry farming, and running SMEs. Increased irrigation coverage and availability of irrigation even winter season enhance community people to introduce market oriented vegetable production impacted the beneficiaries the most. Drinking water schemes helped to collect wastewater in plastic ponds. Construction of different type of collection centers increased the market access, link community people with market actors. Collection center not only ensured the space for increasing access to community people including small holder farmers and local services providers but also provides a multiple economic opportunity to generate local revenue. The construction of collection centers (milk and vegetable) in Ramkot, Nilkantha-8, Dhading, encouraged local people to scale up vegetable and milk production.

Since the livelihoods component focused largely on the rehabilitation of productive infrastructures like irrigation canals and market facilities (like collection centers) with a high potential for promoting local resource-based business opportunities which not only help restore damaged livelihoods but also creates a room for local economic opportunities. CILRP livelihood schemes were successful in harnessing local funds and in-kind assets, promoting the recovery of local enterprises, and stabilizing the livelihoods of earthquake-affected people.

To expedite the recovery of the livelihoods of people impacted by the 2015 earthquake, CILRP engaged in revitalizing critical infrastructure damaged during the disaster. Critical livelihood infrastructures included irrigation canals, agricultural collection centers, cooperative buildings, milk collection centers, ginger processing, cardamom drying, bakeries, and small-scale rice mills, among others. There was great diversity found in livelihood-related interventions to harness the potential of local production and market opportunities. For example, a cooperative in Nigalay of Nuwakot District, CILRP helped to build a two-room earthquake-resilient cardamom collection center where cardamom is collected, dried, graded and packed for sale. Most cooperative members are Tamang women who farm cardamom. With CILRP’s support, a similar collection center for vegetables was built in Kalyanpur, Nuwakot, to the benefit of 356 farming households. Both centers were built to connect farmers directly to the market and thereby limit the roles of middlemen in agri-business.

Despite there being numerous opportunities for inclusive economic growth, there are some risks too. Key risks include the high demands that communities on local governments, the utilization and maintenance of built infrastructure without proper operation and management guidelines (though few watchmen are recruited to take care of the schemes) and partially completed structures. For example, the Ramkot collection center built in Nilakantha Municipality has not come into operation due to lack of basic furniture and operation guidelines. Management committee is yet to form. As local governments are in the nascent stage in terms of policy formulation and institutionalization, many things are still done ad-hoc. f. Comparative advantages and disadvantages of micro-capital grants and open bidding While assessing the comparative advantages and disadvantages of two different implementation modalities, the evaluation team found that the UCs model (through micro-capital grants) is most appropriate for building livelihood recovery infrastructure from which individual households get an immediate benefit. In terms of increased ownership and local leadership, this model is effective. However, in the case of a project from which every individual benefit equally, a health facility, for example, a bidding process is best to ensure the quality of work and efficacy of time. Since there was no proper orientation for or guidance to UCs in many schemes visited by the evaluators, the spirit of community participation and contribution was not at the level desired. Table 3 presents the brief comparison between "competitive bidding" and "micro-capital grants".

17 | P a g e

Table 3: Comparison between competitive bidding and micro-capital grants Competitive bidding Micro-Capital grant Time efficient Take more time Need less technical supervision Need more technical supervision More cost effective with high resource use efficiency Relatively poor in resource use efficiency Relatively easy to assure output quality Difficult to assure output quality due to unavailability of skilled human resource Poor community ownership in the absence of High community ownership due to their community participation, hence poor sustainability of the participation which fostered the sustainability of scheme schemes g. Effectiveness of monitoring arrangements In general, the project's monitoring arrangements have been effective. As a result of these monitoring arrangements, feedback and learning were incorporated in the subsequent processes of planning and implementation. Frequent M&E by local governments assured technical quality and the timely transfer of funds. Monitoring tools included (i) weekly updates from district coordinators and partner NGOs; (ii) regular monitoring and interaction from local governments, (iii) installation of hoarding board before implementation and social audits when schemes are completed, (iv) project progress reports, (v) media coverage (local, national, and international), (vi) social media, UNDP Facebook, and Twitter. Monitoring through social media was effective in the COVID-19 context. However, local governments’ community-based project implementation modality has limited the scope of social audits because ward chairpersons have full authority to recommend final payment. In Dhading and Nuwakot, some users of the sampled schemes are generally not aware of the actual amounts spent on projects, a fact which might have resulted in questions about project transparency. h. Effectiveness of the capacity-building of communities and local governments CILRP has enhanced the capacity of the communities and local governments to create an enabling environment for resilient and inclusive economic recovery through its activities. In doing so, review- and-refection meetings, orientations, and induction meetings were organized. Except for disaster risk reduction (DRR) training and a few livelihood-related training events, longer duration technical training, orientation, study visits, and inter partner NGO and local government level review-and- reflection sessions were very limited. The consultation with partner NGOs and local government officials of Sindhupalchowk and Nuwakot revealed that, in order to share the good practices and lessons learnt, success stories, photographs, case studies, media coverage were disseminated through social media and Google groups created by CILRP. COVID-19 also significantly hampered the organization of formal review-and-reflection sessions. Despite, there being mandatory provisions in local government operation guidelines to provide detailed orientation to UCs before project implementation, none of the UCs visited by the evaluation team had received such an orientation. This was partly because of COVID-19, hence some tools like online/virtual meetings, distant photo monitoring and telephone conversation with partners NGOs were adhered for cross-checking the project's progress. i. Adherence to national and international standards, including the national building codes The field verification and stakeholder consultation revealed that the provisions of national building codes were followed while designing and implementing community infrastructures. While preparing cost estimates, local government standards, norms and costs were used. Coordination with the NRA was limited to report-sharing. Livelihood schemes were developed in consultation with the agriculture, livestock and small cottage industry offices/units of local governments; thus, their protocols were used. j. Introduction of technologies reduced the workload and drudgery of women The project introduced women-friendly technologies such as millet threshing, oil milling, hand tillers, smokeless drying machines for cardamom, electric flour mills, electric flour grinders, coffee pulpers, poly-houses for off-season vegetable cultivation, and the like to reduce the workload and drudgery of women. Some technologies were new and others were modified to suit women so that they could run them easily without any external support. However, capacity-building support for the operation

18 | P a g e

and maintenance (O&M) of the technologies is still missing in some cases. Some of the women-led livelihood schemes included (i) sewing and tailoring, (ii) pickle-making, (iii) handbag and face mask production, (iv) leaf plate-making, and (vi) reusable sanitary pad-making. Crystal jewelry-making schemes targeted Muslim women in Siranchowk of Gorkha, sanitary pad production targeted women in Nuwakot, and mushroom farming targeted Dalit women in Sindhupalchowk are some examples of livelihoods initiatives that targeted women exclusively.

Community infrastructures and livelihood schemes contributed to scaling up and diversify income- generating opportunities among women, but it is hard to claim that their workload is reduced as men folk are still not very supportive about sharing household chores. During FGDs with women’s groups of a drinking water and irrigation canal renovation projects (Arukhark Irrigation System, Melamchi-11, Sindhupalchowk and Barbote -Kunduletar- Thopal Khola Irrigation Scheme, Nuwakot), the evaluation team learned that with the renovation of drinking water, the time taken to fetch water was reduced drastically (in an average from 1.5 hrs to 10-15 minutes). Women also said that, with improved irrigation systems, they don’t need to go out at night to irrigate the land. k. Achievement of CIRLP's objectives, outcome and outputs CILRP's data and evidence gathered from the field visit revealed that project's outputs were achieved to a great extent. This meant that (i) community infrastructures were rehabilitated or constructed to help restore livelihoods and local economies and create short-term employment, and (ii) the basic livelihoods of excluded and vulnerable people were restored and their income-generating opportunities were enhanced with the achievement of sustained resilience and inclusive economic recovery. CILRP's approach to partnerships with local government has added value to achieving the project's outputs within the project’s duration. However, there were still a few challenges to address. They included (i) the inadequate O&M system in place to utilize community infrastructure, and (ii) the inadequate training and entrepreneurship capacity of the groups supported by the project for the group-based business. Consultations with stakeholders revealed that the capacities of local NGOs and UCs in monitoring project activities and managing the technical and financial aspects of the project, and ensuring timely implementation and reporting were inadequate. UCs have limited capacity in financial management. It was also observed that the number of technical staff at partner NGOs were inadequate for the total amount of work to be completed within the limited timeframe of the product. The COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant lockdown created a huge challenge for completing field- level activities as it added a health risk, increased fear among local people and restricted mobility. As youths were outside their villages earning income, it was difficult to mobilize the elderly and women in the project's activities.

CILRP was designed to fill the recovery gaps and build resilience through the construction of community infrastructures and the promotion of livelihoods. Many community infrastructure projects helped to foster rural livelihoods and link the local products to markets, thereby contributing towards inclusive economic growth. This evidence showed that CILRP was instrumental in building the economic resilience of the project's beneficiaries. CILRP's data and evidence from the field observation revealed that projects funded by six different funding agencies14 under CILRP achieved their respective objectives, an end which contributed to achieving program-level outcomes. These outcomes included (i) the stabilization, restoration, and improvement of the livelihoods of vulnerable disaster-affected people and (ii) the rehabilitation of community productive infrastructure to promote the recovery of local enterprise. CILRP is on track to meet its objective: 'fostering rural livelihoods recovery and resilience of disaster affected communities in Nepal through rehabilitation of productive community infrastructure and livelihood improvement'.

The factors enabling the achievement of the CILRP's overall objective, outputs and outcomes were (i) the implementation of projects already endorsed by local government councils through bottom-up

14These six funding agencies included (i) International Medical Corps (IMC), (ii) Royal Thai Embassy, (iii) QRC, (iv) Bridge Head Fund (Michelle Yeoh), (v) Government of Mauritius, and (vi) KOICA.

19 | P a g e

planning processes that reduced the project selection time substantially, (ii) cost-sharing and partnership with local governments which increased cost effectiveness and government ownership, (ii) use of strong social platforms already in place as a result of a partnership with local NGOs, (iii) partner NGOs having a very good rapport with local governments, and (iv) a good coordination and linkages among the relevant stakeholders. Disabling factors included (i) limited mobility affecting timely supervision as a result of COVID-19, (ii) turnover of project staff and local government officials, and (iii) the capacity of UC's to monitor project activities and mobilize resources, and (iv) inadequate capacity-building activities in CILRP.

CILRP also contributed to achieving CPD-Country Programme Document (2018-22) in two main areas of work: inclusive economic growth, and increased climate adaptation and environmental resilience. It delivered CPD’s output 3.5 (improved capacities of communities and government for resilient recovery and reconstruction) through constructing/rehabilitating 789 critical and productive infrastructures; 16 DRR schemes; 536 livelihoods initiatives and 54 CfW schemes benefiting above 800,000 earthquake affected people of earthquake impacted districts.

5.3 Coherence a. CILRP's intervention fit the changed context The earthquake of 2015 damaged infrastructures and livelihood assets; hence, recovery needs were widespread. During the initial phase of CILRP, when the local government was not empowered as it is now, the project therefore worked with loose coordination with the then Village Development Committees (VDC). The concept of joint funding was not a priority of VDCs at the beginning. Later, after state restructuring took place as guided by the new constitution, CILRP changed its modality to work closely with local governments under a formal agreement and joint funding mechanism. With this change, CILRP recognized the role and importance of local governments in leading the development process and ensure government ownership in order to sustain the development outcomes. The concept of community contribution was also incorporated in the later phases as communities had largely recovered from the earthquake by then, and to ensure their ownership as well as sustainability of the intervention. b. CILRP compatible with other interventions at the provincial/sector/NGO level CILRP was closely compatible with other interventions run by provincial governments, sectoral agencies, and NGOs. Similarly, the DFID-funded Post-Earthquake Recovery Program, called PURNIMA has been implemented in four of those same districts, Dhading, Rasuwa, Nuwakot and Gorkha. The USAID-funded Community Resilience and Livelihoods Project (SABAL) also worked in Nuwakot, Rasuwa, Sindhupalchowk, Dolakha and Kavre districts till 2018, helping to recover the livelihood opportunities of earthquake-impacted families. Knowledge-Based Integrated Sustainable Agriculture in Nepal (KISAN), now in its second phase, is another USAID-funded project that has been working to advance food security objectives through increased agricultural productivity. Among its 20 project districts are Kavre, Nuwakot and Sindhupalchok. Till 2018, the Project for Agricultural Commercialization and Trade (PACT), a World Bank-funded project under the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MOALD), was implemented in those seven districts to develop infrastructure for agriculture commercialization and trade. The Livestock Sector Innovation Project, another World Bank-funded project, is implemented in Kavre District to increase productivity, enhance value addition, and improve the climate resilience of smallholder farms and agro-enterprises in selected livestock value-chains.

Projects selected by the CILRP were funded by local governments, and local governments received unconditional grants from the federal and provincial governments. For example, in Roshi Rural Municipality of Kavre, Bagmati Province provided some resources which were then allocated to the construction of drinking water and irrigation schemes. For other local governments, too, provincial funds are being utilized. The Constituency Development Fund, however, was not used as co-funding for the project's activities. Community infrastructure and livelihood promotions are two key sectors

20 | P a g e

at the top of the federal, province and local government's priorities, especially in the earthquake- affected districts and during the recovery and reconstruction phases.

Partner NGOs were successful in leveraging some resources in collaboration with other NGOs/projects within the project's locations as a form of 'parallel-funding.’ For example, in Temal and Roshi rural municipalities of Kavre, other initiatives like Environment and Public Health Organization (ENPHO) in the WASH sector, Fund Board (a World Bank-funded project) in the drinking water sector, and Care Nepal in COVID-19 response in food distribution to the poorest of families and improvement of sanitation facilities focusing on COVID-19 were helpful to reinforce each other's activities. Once water was ensured through CILRP's interventions, it was easy to run and sustain sanitation campaigns in the communities supported by ENPHO and Fund Board. In the village of Sanogimdi of Temal, Kavre, the project took already-built lift systems and reached water to the Amgel village by constructing two additional reservoir tanks. This initiative not only saved NPR18,00,000 but also demonstrated the best model of resource-sharing.

Because local governments played lead roles in the project, they developed a sense of ownership. The project’s role was mainly facilitating and providing technical assistance as well as complementing the budget. Excluding community contributions of local materials and labor (in a few cases) more than 50% of the total cost of the schemes visited during this evaluation was borne by the local government. The selection, study, design and cost estimate of all schemes were done under the leadership of local governments' technical focal person with UC. As the project took over the already selected projects of local governments, it was not possible to choose schemes exclusively targeted to the most vulnerable communities. CILRP selected schemes with small budgets and on the priority lists of local government but left by the local government due to inadequate budget to accomplish the schemes. This fact suggests that if the seasonality of project selection could be matched with local governments' seven-step planning process, CILRP could facilitate the selection of projects targeting the most excluded and vulnerable of communities. c. Synergies and interlinkages with other interventions: UNDP and Municipalities CILRP has been successful in building interlinkages with other interventions carried out by the UNDP and the Government of Nepal for synergetic impacts. Within the UNDP CO, crucial inputs were received from a poverty and inclusive economic growth and resilience portfolio while designing CILRP but similar inputs were not received from resilience portfolio during the implementation of the programme. The involvement of a governance portfolio was limited. At the project level, there is a good linkage among CILRP and other projects like the Cooperative Management Development Project (CMDP), Value Chain Development Project (VCDP) and Micro Enterprise Development Programme Technical Assistance (MEDPA) where there are common working areas. CMDP was designed in 2017 based on the learning of CILRP (only the target groups and the project's locations are different). CILRP’s learning from local government's matching fund approach was replicated by CMDP in later days. The technical design and expertise of CILRP’s collection centers were used by CMDP. For example, in Shivapuri Rural Municipality, Nuwakot, CMDP-developed cooperatives have been utilizing the collection center constructed by CILRP. It is working in partnership with cooperatives and local governments. The Project's Executive Board (PEB) of CMDP is also the same as CILRP and vice versa. VCDP was designed in 2018. It also used CILRP’s concept in terms of the management of matching funds and the selection of demand-driven projects. However, there is no evidence of any cross- learning, resource use or exchange of expertise between these three programs at the functional level, except for sharing each other’s learning and experiences at central-level meetings.

MEDPA, a modified version of the Micro-Enterprise Development Programme (MEDEP), focused largely on individual-based enterprise development. MEDEP helped build entrepreneurial skills and micro-enterprise development which could contribute to building market linkages and of the products developed by the groups from CILRP livelihoods intervention. The MEDEP approach has been owned and gradually internalized by local governments. The learning and practices of MEDEP and MEDPA could have been more fully utilized by CILRP but the project missed out on this opportunity due

21 | P a g e

to inadequate preparatory work like a market study, entrepreneurship development training, and business literacy, before selecting livelihoods interventions. MEDEP experiences and learning on group business were not fully internalised in the CILRP design.

Even though the UNDP ran other programs like (i) Resilient Reconstruction through Build-Back- Better focused on the Most Vulnerable Communities in Districts Severely Affected by 2015 Earthquake project15 (an ECHO-funded project which lasted 24 months and started in 2018 in Sindhupalchowk and Dolakha districts), and (ii) the urban DRR project, an ECHO-funded project in Dolakha, there was limited interactions between these projects and CILRP, a fact which undermined coherence among the UNDP's projects and inhibited their ability to learn from each other.

Within CILRP, different projects implemented at different periods and with different sources of funding learned from each other and adapted accordingly. CfW schemes undertaken in response to the COVID-19 crisis were implemented largely, with some exception, in close coordination with the Prime-Minister Employment programme (PMEP). Beneficiaries for the CfW were selected from a list of unemployed persons and developed and maintained by PMEP. CILRP also collaborated with the Prime-Minister Agriculture Modernization Project (PMAMP) in the maize zone in Sindhupalchok District, a project which also contributed to the livelihood initiatives. Using the CILRP model, UNDP CO was able to secure Track-II funding to implement the projects in Province 2 as well as Lumbini, Gandaki and Sudurpachhim provinces, especially in the tourism sector through the generation of short- term employment. d. CILRP's intervention consistence with other actor’s interventions Where there is a common working area in the programme districts, CILRP closely worked with other projects and programme funded by different development partners. For example, in Shivapuri Rural Municipality of Nuwakot, CILRP and UKAid funded project ‘Purnima’ worked closely in livelihoods recovery initiatives and CfW schemes. However, at programatic scale, CILRP missed opportunities to learn and adapt practices from larger-scale projects and programs implemented in common districts with funding from bilateral and multilateral agencies like the USAID-funded KISAN-II and the World Bank-funded Livestock Sector Innovation Project among others.

5.4 Efficiency Efficiency was judged in terms of (i) the project's design and plan, (ii) mechanisms to ensure transparency, (iii) the timeliness of the utilization of resources to achieve results, (iv) the fund flow process/mechanism to leverage resources to the community, (v) the appropriateness and the efficiency of the existing project management structure, (vi) the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the project’s implementation strategy and execution, (vii) value for money, (viii) the efficiency of the project's approach and strategies, (ix) the project's monitoring and supervision and (ix) the structure with which to promote vertical and horizontal accountability.

CILRP rated ‘high’ in overall efficiency in project implementation, monitoring, supervision and learning. However, due to its short duration and inadequate time for preparation, a number of good and promising practices of UNDP’s programme and other programmes outside of UNDP in livelihood programming, specifically enterprise development and creation, and market linkages were overlooked by CILRP. CILRP has not even developed its own overarching programme document or results framework

Responding to questions about the alignment of CILRP’s activities with expected results, nearly 50% of informants said that activities were fully aligned with the expected results and 33% said partially aligned. Similarly, in terms of the efficiency of resource use, 42% rated CILRP as highly efficient and

15This project had four anticipated outputs: (i) reconstruction of disaster-resilient houses, (ii) empowering communities with self- determined resilient recovery plans and risk management strategies for future disasters, (iii) resilient livelihood opportunities and an enabling environment for inclusive development, and (iv) affordable and people- centred reconstruction policies and actions. 22 | P a g e

31% and 28% said efficient and moderately efficient respectively (refer Table 4).

Table 4: Key informant's responses on efficiency 1. To what extent the CILRP activities were aligned with the expected results? Total responses (n=36) Fully Partially To Some extent Not at all Don’ t Know 18 12 6 2. How did you find the implementation and resource (technical, financial) mobilization of the CILRP ? Total responses (n=36) Highly Efficient Efficient Moderately efficient Not efficient Not efficient at all Don’ t Know 15 11 10 a. Efficiency of the project's design and plan Except for a few technical modifications in some schemes, the project was implemented as per its design and plan. CILRP's financial and technical assistance helped local governments to complete previously incomplete projects. For instance, the Ramkot Collection Center in Nilakanthak Municipality, Dhading, and Kaduwal Agriculture Cooperative Building of Temal, Kavre were completed by sharing costs with CILRP. The design of Karamdanda Women’s Cooperative Building in Temal, Kavre, was modified from CGI-sheet roofing to reinforced cement concrete (RCC) once the community was ready to contribute an additional NPR 300,000 in cash. In this way, the project's design and plan have been efficient for leveraging the resources needed to complete its activities.

Among UNDP-managed projects, CILRP has an entirely different nature. It is implemented locally under a tripartite agreement modality in which the UNDP was a contributing agency, one which supported local government-led initiatives. Individual projects within CILRP were implemented as specified in the project documents. For example, the Project for Health Care Facilities Construction from KOICA in Nuwakot District was implemented directly with technical guidance from KOICA’s technical adviser, whereas livelihoods recovery projects with support from the Royal Thai Embassy were implemented using the UC approach. The community WASH improvement project implemented under Qatar Red Crescent in Gorkha District was implemented through a construction committee under the technical supervision of CILRP and the municipality. CILRP’s selection of implementation modalities differed based on the nature of the works. For example, in projects with labor-intensive work, the UC approach was applied to ensure that a large number of users would get local employment, whereas for projects requiring more external materials and expertise, like pre-fabricated construction, a competitive bidding process was applied. b. Mechanisms to ensure transparency Mechanisms such as information board, social auditing, joint bank accounts of UCs, and periodic review of physical progress and expenditure all enhanced transparency at the project level. To maintain transparency, information was constantly shared with relevant stakeholders through different means viz. imparting meetings, sending letters and emails, and sharing progress reports. An information board provides information related to total costs, project duration and a number of direct beneficiaries. It would be much better if gender and ethnic disaggregation were included in the information. Social audits were carried out at the time of completion, before the release of the final installment. During the social audit, each and every resource consumed and all the labor involved is accounted for in the social audit book. This book is made public and can be checked and verified by any individual. This approach has made the project process highly transparent and accountable. However, the quality of infrastructure would have been even better if the projects had organized social auditing during the middle of the implementation of the project (focusing on the process and progress made till that so that beneficiaries; feedback would be addressed). Feedback boxes were provisioned at the offices of partner NGOs and local governments so that CILRP could listen to and address the issues and concerns of beneficiaries and stakeholders. But not even a single complaint was received yet in the written form. Because complaints had to be written by someone else, they were not confidential and secrets could have been leaked, thereby disrupting social solidarity and breaking down relationships. Using feedback boxes was not very effective because the majority of beneficiaries were illiterate and the boxes were out of immediate reach. Therefore, instead of a feedback box, a complaints-handling

23 | P a g e

and -response committee and toll-free numbers would have been more practical for lodging and managing complaints. Toll-free numbers could be provided in information boards so that people could express their complaints confidentially.

In order to enter into a partnership, each UC has to prepare strong documentation. The UC’s meeting minutes and application letter, a recommendation letter from the ward chairperson for the concerned scheme, bank opening details and an account number, and the UC's commitment to complete the project within the stipulated time are the minimum documents. c. Timeliness for the utilization of resources to achieve results CILRP's delivery processes were efficient in terms of the time and resources required at each stage of implementation as a result of good coordination and collaboration. Coordination among different actors—local governments, NGO partners, UCs and other stakeholders—has been good. While CILRP put forth a full effort to use its resources, including human, material and financial, to achieve the results, a few projects were still not completed within the stipulated time-frame. The project's records revealed that 62% of the sub-projects were managed under no-cost extension.

CILRP's data and evidence from the field observation revealed that projects funded by six funding agencies were largely completed as they were planned (figure 5).

XX

400 347 350 328

300 250 Number of CI scheme Planned 250 216 Number of CI scheme actual

200 Number of LI scheme Planned 160 139 130 Number of LI scheme Actual

No of Schems Schems of No 150 100 100 82 45 50 26 21 16 10 10 13 7 7 - IMC KOICA GoM RTG BHF QRC Projects

Figure 5: Planned Vs Actual Schemes by Project d. Efficiency of the fund flow mechanism to leverage resources to communities The fund for the execution of CILRP’s activities was released by UNDP to the partner's NGO accounts. The first installment was released within a week to expedite the project's work. All payments to UCs were made directly by partner NGOs upon the recommendation of a local government and completion of tripartite agreement (following the approval of local government technicians). During the field visit, stakeholders and partner NGOs of Kavre and Nuwakot districts reported that the final payment process was slow due to the time-consuming and comprehensive documentation process for the final measurement and valuation of the work done. Because of the absence of proper documentation from partner NGOs, the final payment was delayed though a checklist of needed documents had been shared during the induction meetings. All the projects utilized the allocated resources in accordance with the schedules. Late payment was an issue in Kavre and with NGOs in Dhading. To be eligible for a second installment, at least 80% of the budget of the first installment had to be consumed by September 2020. As partner NGOs did not meet this provision, the second and final payments were merged and, consequently, payment was delayed.

24 | P a g e

e. Turnover of staff and PEB members' impacted in the programme efficiency One of the reasons for delays in project completion was the high staff turnover at partner NGOs, and local governments. In CILRP, the M&E Officer and Livelihood Officer left the project, which created some gaps for a few months. COVID-19 also impacted a lot for delay. There was some level of gap in the provision of technical supports to livelihood schemes (around 1.5 years). When the first Livelihood Officer was dropped, it took many months to recruit another one. A district coordinator of Nuwakot was recruited in October 2020 to serve for three months after the earlier District Coordinator had left. During the CIRLP design phase, the then portfolio manager was replaced by the current portfolio manager in 2017. During CILRP's tenure (5.5 years), a total of three co-chairs from the UNDP (Deputy Resident Representative) and the government (Joint Secretary of Ministry of Land Management, Co- operatives and Poverty Alleviation-MoLMCPA) were changed. The turnover of chief administrative officers at local governments had a big impact on the project’s ability to make payments to UCs. However, the programmatic gaps which emerged due to staff turnover were readily managed by quick provisioning of the induction and mobilization of new staff members. In Kavre, the Project Coordinator (PC) was changed two months into this phase, so the social mobilizer was upgraded to the PC's position. Partner NGOs faced difficulties in the initial few months to maintain good-quality supervision and reporting. f. Appropriateness and efficiency of the existing project management structure In general, the existing project management structure was appropriate and efficient in generating the expected results. Technical staffs were provisioned both at the partner NGO and the CILRP level (except in Kavre where it was decided to provide support through the CILRP/UNDP office in Kathmandu) to ensure good technical quality. However, the numbers and types of staff across the districts were varied (despite of flexibility provided to partner NGOs to manage human resources within allocated budget limits, few variation was in place based on the remoteness of the project's area), a fact which increased some dissatisfaction of partner NGOs. There is a need for a standard 'human resource' protocol. Roles and duties were segregated in order to achieve effective project management. However, there was a gap of enterprise facilitators and livelihood technicians in CILRP. g. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the project implementation strategy Considering the total volume of work, the short project tenure, geographical remoteness of its target areas, institutionally weak local governments (formed only in 2018 after the 2017 election), and COVID-19 context, the project's implementation was found to be reasonably efficient and cost- effective. Upon discussion with the officials of partner NGOs during the field consultation in Sindhupalchowk and Nuwakot, it was found that the per-unit budget of and staff allocation to similar projects funded by other development partners were relatively higher than those for CILRP, a fact suggesting its cost efficiency. The CILRPs’ own budget is only 55 % of the total amount, and 27 % was contributed by local government, 14 % by the local community, and 4 % from the third party (N/INGOs and private sector) which further justified the cost effectiveness and efficiency. The budget allocated for each of the community infrastructure and livelihood intervention is ranging from NPR 15,000 to NPR 8,840,000. The total budget allocated to CILRP was USD 11,856,961.99. Out of this, 95 % was already utilized by the third week of December 2020. In the opinion of stakeholders in Sindhupalchowk, the majority of the CILRP's projects were cost efficient because they (i) promoted local resources like woods and stone, (ii) used local human resources, (iii) designed labor-intensive schemes where community contributions ranged from 10% to 30%, (iv) used local municipality rate and norms (which are normally low) while designing the projects, (v) made a payment based on actual field measurements rather than initial estimates, and (vi) involved third parties in cost-sharing. With high cost-sharing and resource-use efficiency, more schemes were completed that had been planned in the majority of projects. h. Value for money The project was successful in achieving good value for money because, with efficient resources mobilization, cost-sharing, a competitive procurement process, and close supervision and monitoring

25 | P a g e

by the CILRP team, partner NGOs and the local government. CILRP spent only 8-9% (maximum 18%) as management costs, including human resource management at partner NGOs. The per-unit beneficiary cost is relatively low compared to the total number of households that benefited and the geographical remoteness of the project areas. Matching fund with municipalities has been able to leverage significant proportion of programme cost (i.e. 82% in 2015 to 43% in 2020). The matching fund modality has not only increased resource use efficiency but also fostered local ownership in the project. i. Efficiency of the project's approach and strategies The project's approach and strategies were efficient. Strategies were developed in such a way that they ensured (i) the participation of beneficiaries in decision-making during design and implementation, (ii) an assurance of gender and social inclusion (GESI) in institution-building and service delivery, and (iii) assurance of transparency in the procurement process. Local NGOs engaged one project coordinator, engineer and or junior engineer and social mobilizers in all districts except Kavre. Project always give priority for the recruitment of local staff for increasing efficiency and reducing the turnover. Partner NGOs were involved from the beginning of project implementation and this approach of engaging partner NGOs was appropriate primarily because it fosters good rapport with communities and local governments. It was said that partnership with local NGOs also considerably reduced time and management costs.

The CILRP’s approach to project execution benefited local communities by maximizing short-term employment opportunities. The community infrastructure component, which is one of the largest components of this project, used local resources and materials as far as practicable. Similarly, the project’s engagement of local human resources, particularly sub-overseers, helped to expedite work and build the capabilities of local technicians. The majority of infrastructures developed under CILRP are small and technically simple. Since the infrastructures were built with simple technology and local materials, they do not require a high level of technical supervision. No adverse environmental impacts have been observed either, a fact which is probably attributable to their small size. The capacity of UCs to procure materials and keeps records was found to be moderate. Projects were operationalized by local governments and CILRP's role was focused on facilitation and technical backstopping. The project's approach to building the capacities of UCs and partner NGOs was instrumental but the project organized only a few events. The strategy of using existing social platforms rather than erecting new institutions was also appreciated by many stakeholders. j. Project's monitoring and supervision Monitoring and supervision were practiced in five stages. First, UCs were involved in monitoring and supervision. Second, technical monitoring was done through partner NGOs and local governments. Third, the CIRLP project team provided technical inputs as and when required. With the involvement of partner NGOs, the monitoring work was carried out satisfactorily despite the remoteness of project locations and the COVID-19 context. Fourth, a joint monitoring team of government officials and media provided feedback. In Kavre, a joint monitoring team consisting of District Coordination Committee-DCC, NRA, partner NGO, drinking water office, irrigation, and media representatives provided crucial feedback after physically observing the project's innovations. The projects were well covered in different forms of media. Fifth, officials from UNDP CO, along with representatives of donor agencies and PEB, also visited a few schemes and added value by providing feedback and suggestions. Monitoring by the CILRP team was instrumental in streamlining project activities and meeting targets within the stipulated time. That said, the frequency of monitoring visits was limited, partly due to the pandemic.

The project's stakeholders opined that monitoring by CILRP/UNDP was inadequate during the implementation phase, in part because of travel restrictions imposed as a result of COVID-19. CILRP used visual online methods like photo monitoring and daily updates by telephone and social media with partner NGOs in the COVID-19 context. During the project period, a total of ten monitoring

26 | P a g e

visits were made by donor agencies16, six visits from UNDP CO senior officials and another 16 visits were made by PEB members (Annex 5). These monitoring visits were instrumental for improving programmatic quality through timely feedback and suggestions. Financial monitoring was conducted through a review of books and accounts, logbooks, and social auditing. PEB meetings are usually organized biannually, but due to the short tenure of the project, it was agreed to organize them on a quarterly basis. Thus, a total of 20 PEB meetings (17 face-to-face and 3 virtual) were organized within 5.5 years. PEB meetings were instrumental for making policy, fostering government inter-agency coordination, and promoting partnership modality. However, some key advices from PEB members in PEB meetings, for example, field visit by PEB members, prioritization of commercial vegetable farming in Nuwakot, institutional capacity-building of already completed schemes, recorded in the meeting minutes were not fully materialized.

The CILRP’s apex body, the PEB, helped to provide strategic guidance and approve its plans and programs. CILRP is one of the most visible projects within UNDP CO. It was covered by national, regional and international media. At the federal level, there was a strong collaboration with the MoLMCPA, Ministry of Agricultural Development (MoAD), Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD), Ministry of Forestry and Soil Conservation and the NRA. At the district level, the project worked closely with thematic units of local governments, which helped in project selection and technical backstopping during implementation and monitoring. k. Structure to promote vertical and horizontal accountability Vertical accountability was maintained by monitoring and strategic guidance provided by PEB members and UNDP CO. For horizontal accountability, UCs reported to partner NGOs and local governments, partner NGOs reported to CILRP, CILRP reported to UNDP CO, and UNDP CO reported to development partner's/donor agencies.

5.5 Sustainability The overall sustainability of CILRP was rated moderate. CILRP’s sustainability was assessed based on local capacity, ownership, systems in place, technological complexity, and environmental sustainability. Despite the short duration of the individual projects, the community infrastructure and livelihood initiatives are assumed to be moderately sustainable because the infrastructures built are small and simple, local governments assumed ownership of those infrastructures, and community participation was good. Furthermore, increased community participation, community-led decision-making process, maintenance fund mechanism, backstopping from local government all ensured the sustainability of the project's operated schemes. Of the total key informants interviewed during this evaluation process, fewer than 50% were fully convinced that the structures built by and the potential outcomes of the project would be fully sustained in the long run (Table 5). The reasons for their response were their previous experiences of government-led community structure, inadequate O&M plans and the limited capacity of UCs.

Table 5: Key informant's responses with respect to the sustainability of schemes To what extent is it likely that the structures created by CILRP will be maintained after the programme? Total responses (n=36) Will be fully maintained Will be maintained to some extent Will not be maintained Don’ t know 16 12 5 3 What is your assessment of the overall sustainability of the project outcomes after CILRP? Total responses (n=36) Fully sustainable Partially sustainable Will not be sustained Don’ t know 12 18 2 1

16 High level officials viz. Japanese Ambassador, Brazilian ambassador, Thai ambassador, Qatari Ambassador, Korean Ambassador, UNDP goodwill Ambassador, UNDP RR of UNDP Asia Pacific Officers, UNDP Executive Board members, Assistant Secretary General of UNDP AP Bureau, and Swedish Parliamentarians were visited CILRP sites.

27 | P a g e

a. Good rapport with civil society organizations and local governments CILRP worked closely with UCs, partner NGOs and local governments during project selection, implementation, monitoring and supervision. One of the beauties of CILRP is that each partner NGO is district-based and has several years of experience, technical expertise and excellent rapport with local governments and communities. These social and institutional assets added value in the effort to leverage resources from local governments and other development partners. Because CILRP put local governments at the front of the implementation process, additional resources for the O&M of structures built with the programme support may be allocated. b. Livelihood groups slowly systematized their business ventures In some cases, livelihood groups started to conduct their businesses in a more organized fashion and developed links with large traders. They also operate savings-and-credit schemes that serve group members who needed loans. Before CILRP's intervention, in contrast, people feared taking loans from micro-finance institutions, and cooperatives and savings- and-credit groups were not able to provide loans at the desired scale. Now that groups have developed business plans, they are confident enough to take loans from savings-and-credit groups, cooperatives, and micro-finance institutions. For their part, these financial institutions have developed flexible installment payback systems to encourage more groups to launch small-scale enterprises. Many livelihood groups are now linked with cooperatives, which serve as “parental” institutions that supervise their activities and help them promote their businesses. Each livelihood group now meets regularly and makes decisions designed for action, a fact that strengthens their institutionalization. Participants in the FGDs in Kavre and Sindhupalchowk estimated that 78% of members take loans mostly from savings-and-credit groups that 15% turn to cooperatives, 4% to micro-finance institutions, and 3% rely on private money lenders. Financial capital is crucial for building resilience and the initiatives undertaken by livelihood groups are slowly maturing to build that capital. c. Contributions to environmental sustainability The project’s implementation modality was environment friendly. For example, wood, stones and other materials from damaged house were used as far as possible so as not to put excessive pressure on local environments. The stone required was extracted only from designated areas so that there would be no risk of landslides. Wood was harvested from community forests, but only from designated areas. The designs for community infrastructures were made in such a way that they required the least amount of wood possible and, as a result, conserved the forest environments. In Nuwakot, for example, 10 community health facilities were built entirely from pre-fabricated materials. Sustainability could have been ensured further if (i) the project had promoted local resources like wood and stone

Before this project (CILRP), we were helpless. We did not have any livelihood schemes. As a result, we have to rely on our husband to meet the minor demands. We were jobless. We used to take loan from private money lenders in high interest rate (in 36% to 60% per annum) to sort out the household’s work. As a result, we were under the vicious circle of poverty. Thanks to the project, we are now engaged with small scale livelihood initiatives and our loan demands are fulfilled from the groups’ fund. The most important thing is we are no longer dependent on our husbands for minor expenses. --Women group members during FGD in Melamchi, Sindhupalchock rather than brick and cement, and (ii) CGI sheeting roofs, which are not environmentally suitable were replaced with traditional stone and wooden plank roofs. There was an opportunity to build mud masonry and stone community buildings to retain warmth during the winter and maintain coolness during summer. Instead of lift drinking water schemes, more gravity schemes could be promoted and plastic pipes in drinking water schemes could be strategically replaced with Galvanized Iron pipes in the location where there is a risk of forest fires. d. Institutionalization of UCs and operation and maintenance fees Some UCs have initiated the collection of O&M fees, particularly for irrigation and drinking water facilities, and keep the amount they collect in their accounts. For example, the Thangsingbesi drinking water scheme in Roshi Rural Municipality of Karve has started to collect monthly water tariffs from

28 | P a g e

water users now that water meters17 have been connected to their individual taps. Seto Pahara Kaidel Sim drinking water scheme in Indrawati Rural Municipality of Sindhupalchowk collects NPR 100 from each of 90 households and has deposited the amount in an O&M fund. Deurali Women’s Group of Takukot in Barpak Sulikot Rural Municipality of Gorkha has set service fees for grinding. It collects NPR 5 per pathi (1 pathi equals 4 kg) to grind rice and NPR 10 per pathi to grind maize. A mechanism is in place so that 40% of the amount collected is used to remunerate staff, 40% is allocated to pay the fee for electricity, and 20% is set aside in a reserve fund. This group now plans to procure a millet thresher. In the Thanginghbesi drinking water scheme, water users' groups (WUGs) have not received adequate management training, particularly in internal resource generation, to match the costs of O&M costs and need for recordkeeping. Though village maintenance worker training has not been imparted, the Thangingbesi WUG hired two heralu (caretaker) to look after the system and provides NPR 3,500 per month to each as an incentive. However, the village does not collect irrigation service fees from the newly renovated Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme. No fees are collected and no O&M fund is maintained fully in the irrigation schemes the evaluation team visited in Nuwakot and Dhading districts.

The development of social infrastructures, like business plans and O&M plans, could help boost the sustainability of the schemes. The irrigation schemes (the Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme in Roshi-7, Kavre) visited during this evaluation have started to formulate O&M committees, and develop O&M plans to support periodic maintenance. The O&M funds now in their hands are too meagre to match the O&M requirements of the systems in the future, especially if they are impacted by a small- or medium-scale disaster. That said, adequate coordination among UCs and local governments ensured that these schemes will get some O&M as post-construction support in the future. CILRP focused mainly on the execution of civil work and gave less emphasis to the capacity-building and institutional development of UCs because the number of community infrastructure and livelihood schemes to be completed within the short project period was great. Consequently, the UCs are not fully capable of taking up the responsibilities of system of O&M. Most of the UCs which were formed are in the process of registration. At the time of the evaluation field visit, UC members were in the process of drafting operational guidelines (written rules) and bidhan (constitutions) by incorporating all the customary rules, regulations, norms, and practices of the communities in which the schemes operate. However, local governments are committed to ensuring all these with their regular follow-up and technical support mechanism as and when needed. e. Linkages of UCs with the technical or thematic units of local governments It was good to observe that CILRP's recovery activities are being integrated into the local government’s long-term development plans. Elected officials have promised to channel funds into the renovation of project-constructed infrastructures, including irrigation and drinking water schemes, if it is required in the next fiscal year. The elected officials at Roshi Rural Municipality of Kavre and Panchakanya Rural Municipality of Nuwakot said that they would allocate resources from their regular funds at least for the renovation of the infrastructures and livelihood schemes if not to fund O&M.

All the UCs are now connected with technical or thematic units of local governments, a fact which ensures that they will receive technical guidance. This institutional connection could help UCs to get resources from local governments in the future for the O&M of their schemes. As the project’s activities were developed with the long-term goals of communities in mind and are low-cost, easy to operate, and designed to reduce future risks, they are sustainable even without large investments. CILRP's approach of “linking relief to recovery and development” could promote sustainability and help local governments gain the knowledge and skills they need to respond effectively to future disasters. The majority of the CILRP's schemes were designed based on the needs and demands of local people. Schemes like drinking water, irrigation, community-building, and foot trail improvement meet people’s daily concerns. Local ownership of these schemes is high because UCs are directly involved in purchasing and collecting construction materials, mobilizing human resources, and

17The price of a locally produced Amico water meter is NPR 1300, while a Chinese water meter is 750 in Teku, Kathmandu

29 | P a g e

completing the schemes; indeed, they are the real leaders of the schemes. Community contributions, which range from 10% to 30% of the total project costs, are also a reflection of their ownership. f. Sustainability of livelihood schemes The concept of Koseli Ghar was derived from the MEDPA. Though established very late by the project, a Koseli Ghar at Bahunepati (Melamchi-12) and Roshi-7 of Kavre District was established to promote local products and enhance systematic marketing. In Bahunepati, as there are more than 12 registered private and public farms producing agricultural commodities and 13 out of the 25 board members are commercial farmers, there will be no scarcity of farm products in the future. It is likely that Koseli Ghar will run even after the project comes to an end due to the assured collaboration with local governments, the PMAMP unit in Sindhupalchowk, and partner NGOs; the preparation of operation guidelines; the identification and listing of product protocol and materials; and the commitment of the local government to further capacity-building of this group suggested. In contrast, the sustainability of Koseli Ghar of Roshi-7 is still doubtful unless immediate measures like sustainability plans are taken into consideration. The evaluation team observed a group-managed goat-farming scheme in Dhading District and interacted with the group members. Because this scheme lacks operation guidelines, its sustainability is in question. The community is planning to prepare operation guidelines soon.

The majority of the livelihood schemes were selected based on local government priority with joint funding from beneficiary groups (in cash, kind and material) and CILRP including local government. CILRP provided a few skill-based trainings and supported the formulation of the business plan. Each of the group-based businesses are registered with the corresponding thematic units of local governments (and small cottage industry units) so that they will be able to get perennial support. Some of the livelihood schemes were run collaboratively with other agencies, too. For example, the agriculture and milk collection center in Dupcheswor, Nuwakot, was established with other NGOs like Sappros Nepal and Share and Care. The Iman Aarohi Park Information Center of Dharche Rural Municipality- 4 Gorkha was established in collaboration with the Nepal Mountaineering Association. In collaboration with the North Gorkha Mule Business Association, a mule shelter was constructed in Dharche Rural Municipality-5 of Gorkha. A cycling track in Dharche was completed with the support of the Nepal Tourism Board. Similarly, the integrated Koseli Ghar scheme was erected in Melamchi 12, Sindhupalchowk in collaboration with the PMAMP’s Sindhupalchowk unit. Cost-sharing by the ministries, local governments and NGOs was instrumental in achieving local ownership and the long- term sustainability of these schemes. Local stakeholders in Kavre opined that instead of supporting a few scattered community infrastructures and livelihood schemes, it would be wiser to take few villages and develop as model replicable to other areas.

The development of detailed implementation plans and the acquisition of land to construct community buildings construction to curtail likely disputes later promoted the sustainability of schemes. The Royal Thai Government funded projects in Kavre and Sindhupalchowk districts, CILRP also facilitated the development of users’ guidelines and maintenance plans to bolster the sustainability of its water and irrigation schemes. Partner NGOs facilitated livelihood schemes by helping beneficiaries develop business plans, undertake cost-and-benefit analysis, and develop marketing linkage to ensure that income will be perennial.

Though CILRP paid its efforts for the sustainability of community infrastructures, still some community infrastructures have no O&M plans and O&M funds to support periodic maintenance. If CILRP had mobilized UCs to collect at least 5% of the total budget in the O&M before channelizing the first installment to them, this could have generated a fund. This was a missed opportunity on CILRP’s part. However, in the majority of livelihood schemes, the management cost was ensured from the beneficiaries before releasing the first installment, which was commendable. Local governments are also expected to continue its support in the subsequent years for the sustainability of these interventions. Basic tools and equipment, safety gear and technical training were grossly inadequate.

The sustainability of the community infrastructures could be enhanced if CILRP were to (i) install anti-

30 | P a g e

lightning devices in community buildings, collection centers, and health posts to reduce the impacts of lightning, (ii) use fire-retardant materials to reduce the risk of fire, (iii) install rainwater-harvesting features in CGI sheeting-roofed buildings to meet the growing demand for water for sanitation purposes, (iv) construct water run-off control structures to reduce the impacts of landslides and mass slides in the hills, and (v) introduce community plantation along water sources to rejuvenate water source depleted due to climatic variability.

5.6 Impact CILRP ended logically, thereby contributing towards the national mission to achieve the successful recovery and reconstruction of earthquake affected communities. Since the CILRP did not conduct baseline and end-line surveys, it was not possible to measure the impacts on or changes in people's lives and livelihoods brought about by CILRP in quantitative terms. It was also difficult to gauge the changes since there was no consolidated results chain and no defined outcome or impact-level indicators for the program. Indicators were available only at the output level. None of the projects developed a log-frame during project formulation. The following qualitative evidence of effects and impacts was gathered during the evaluation process.

Considering the effects and impacts it had in terms of improving the lives and wellbeing of its target groups, CILRP demonstrated that it is one of the most visible initiatives among the UNDP’s programme in Nepal and among respective donor agencies. It also helped foster community solidarity through joint social actions. Local-level stakeholders admired the fact that, as a result of CILRP, the capacity and visibility of local governments had increased. The trust of local people in local governments was also enhanced. a. Major changes brought by some of the schemes visited i. Increased crop diversity and intensity due to reliable irrigation: Consultations with irrigation water users in Arukharka of Sindhupalchowk and Panchakanya of Nuwakot revealed that CILRP had helped to improve irrigation management practices, a result which strengthened the capacities of irrigation users’ committees. The renovations increased the reliability of irrigation as seepage was controlled and water discharge in canals increased. As a result of the renovations, the volume and frequency of irrigation increased, thereby contributing to an increase in the irrigation command area, increase crop intensification as well as yields. The CILRP’s support was also instrumental in increasing farm productivity, so it was also able to boost food security in food-insecure areas.

In Arukhark of Sindhupalchowk, the increase in the reliability of irrigation resulted in an increase in cropping intensity from 115% to 210% due to farmer’s ability to, with irrigation water, introduce

Unlike last year, all famers cultivated potatoes this year thanks to the renovated canal said Nabarai Rai, chairperson of the Aaptari Mahatfant Dhdodani Irrigation Scheme, Pachkanya-1, Nuwakot. Mr Rai, who is among the many labor migrants who returned after COVID-19, wishes to stay in the community and continue farming. The improved irrigation facility would add value to his farming endeavor, he added.

We were trained in kitchen gardening. We learned about types of seeds, seedlings, sowing times, care and support, manure and irrigation, disease and disease management, and marketing. Before the training, I was unaware of the importance of nutritious food and a balanced diet. We now consume fresh vegetables and our health has improved. I also sell surplus vegetables beyond what the family can eat within the village. Now I am planning to grow more vegetables. The project helped us improve irrigation, and helped us to grow vegetables even during the dry season. --Women group member during FGD in Thangsingbesi, Kavre winter paddy and vegetables as additional crops. In both the schemes the CILRP renovated, cropping patterns changed drastically: they shifted from rain-fed crops such as rain-fed paddy, maize and millet to irrigated paddy in the monsoon, wheat and vegetables in the winter and maize in the spring. The coverage of vegetables also increased and due to increased irrigation facilities, many people started market oriented vegetable production for their household incomes. It was said that higher agricultural yields had been noticed in the sampled irrigation systems. The renovation of the irrigation scheme in

31 | P a g e

Tadi Rural Municipality-4 of Nuwakot District not only increased water discharge in the canal but also controlled a chronic landslide problem that the community had had to face every year. In Sadhikhola Bismure Eklephant Irrigation Scheme of Gorkha, flexible designs were introduced. In landslide-prone areas, pipes were used as aqueducts during the winter and dismantled during the monsoon to prevent flooding.

After the supply of water became reliable even during winter, women started to get involved in vegetable farming. In Arukhark of Sindhupalchowk, women said that they used the money they earn from selling vegetables for domestic consumption, buying goats and paying old debts. Likewise, women of Thangsingbesi of Kavre expressed that their safety and security had improved with the provision of a reliable supply of water as there was no need for them to go out in the fields at night to irrigate. Nighttime irrigation had carried with the risk of attacks by wildlife as well as sexual exploitation and assault. ii. Reduced the time and drudgery associated with fetching water, especially for women, by renovating drinking water systems: Water schemes were designed to provide 45 L per person per day plus 20 L for livestock, if enough water was available in the source. In the views of water users in Thangsingbesi of Roshi Rural Municipality of Kavre, the renovation of drinking water schemes helped to increase the adequacy of household supplies and to reduce the time spent fetching water. It was said that the time saved per household varied from 1 hour to 4.5 hours per day. Women said, "Our workload has been drastically decreased, and we don't have to wake up early in the morning just to fetch water anymore." It was also learned that the time saved, which is mostly among women, is currently being utilized for kitchen gardening, agricultural activities, child care, personal hygiene and some time for socialization and entertainment. Girls also get more time for their studies. Renovated schemes also helped to reduce water-related conflicts and generations-long discrimination between Dalits and non-Dalits. Dalit women opined, “We are no longer subject to discrimination while fetching water nearby. As a result, our self-esteem has risen. This is a huge achievement for us.” Focus group discussions indicated that the consumption of water increased on average from four to twelve gagri (water vessel with a capacity of 10-12 L) per family (with an average of 5 members). The increase in water consumption reflects an increase in sanitation, particularly with respect to the cleaning of houses, washing of clothes and bathing. With the assurance that water will be available, toilets are now used properly. Women have started to initiate kitchen gardening, especially vegetable farming. Access to safe drinking water has also made the community more resilient to health hazards. CILRP contributed to water testing in all 17 schemes it established by taking water samples to the Water Engineering and Training Centre (P) Ltd. in Ratopul of Kathmandu. E. coli was found in 15 of the 17 schemes but in very low concentrations (below the level of acceptability). Water guards were installed in reservoirs and sedimentation chambers to catch potentially harmful contaminants.

In Irkhu VDC of Sindhupalchowk District, the Water for Survival Project funded by BHF ensured the reliable supply of water, a fact which helped during the renovation and construction of houses damaged by the earthquake. There were some challenges in regulating drinking water facilities, however. Local people said that those with customary rights to a source might object to its distribution and squabbles might arise over how to allocate water among upstream and downstream users and among those who used it for irrigation and those who did not. iii. Increased access to health facilities: Improvements in the physical facilities of health posts has helped to improve the provision of drugs and increase emergency health services. In Panchakanya-1 of Nuwakot District, the community health post management committee, female community health workers, community people and project staff shared that after this community health facility was constructed, community health service began to reach every individual in the proximity that drugs began to be properly managed and the flow of patient also increased. With a community health facility at their doorstep, people started getting more check-ups. Earlier they had had to go Choaugadha, which is around 5 km away, just for primary health care. Since there was spacious infrastructure, antenatal care services were started and soon a birthing center will be established with support from

32 | P a g e

Good Neighbor International (a Korea-based NGO). Mostly, poor people are benefiting from health post services as they are cheaper than accessing services at a distance. With CILRP support, 10 community-level health facilities were built in the district. iv. Improved access to markets and service centers: In the majority of CfW schemes, agricultural roads and foot trails were upgraded, thereby connecting villages with markets and service centers. The improvement of foot trails in Panchakanya, Nuwakot, and the maintenance of roads and improvement of drainage in Melamchi-11, Sindhupalchowk were the projects that served as lifelines for community people so that they could access markets and service centers. During FGDs at Katunje Motor Road, Melamchi, women said that before the road was maintained, it took them almost 40 minutes to reach Melamchi Bazar but that after maintenance, it took only 20 minutes. This scheme was instrumental in generating local employment opportunities and quick income, especially for daily wage earners, migrant returnees, and unemployed youths and women. Villagers use the improved roads to supply their farm commodities to markets throughout the year. This road has also increased access to school and healthcare facilities for the local people.

CILRP, in coordination with the PMAMP unit, has been promoting the commercialization of and value addition to agricultural products. In Rasuwa, CILRP adopted the concept of a "potato pocket zone" and initiated the promotion of potato cultivation through value addition, grading, and marketing support. Similarly, it also provided support to a potato zone in Jiri Municipality by constructing a rustic store to increase storage facilities for potato seeds and potatoes. A milk collection and chilling center was established in Panchkanaya-2, Nuwakot. It directly benefits 70 milk-producing households with assured markets. The collection center offers them NPR 60 per liter of milk. Earlier, when they had to sell milk to individual buyers, they earned only NPR 55. There was scope for working with the PMAMP's project for maize zones in Sindhupalchowk for the production of maize seed, but it did not materialize due to lengthy administrative procedures. However, in Nuwakot, CILRP's livelihood schemes were linked with the vegetable and ginger pocket areas introduced by the government and the PMAMP.

A milk chilling vat was established in Bhotechaur (Melamchi-1) with the support of CILRP. It helped to store milk for a longer time. The vat holds up to 2,500 L of milk for up to three days. On average, 3,500 L milk is collected per day. Each farmer produces between 5 L and 80 L and their monthly income ranges from NPR 11,250 to NPR 180,000. Cooperative members said that with the increase in their incomes, farmers have started to invest in better breeds of buffaloes and cows. Both the Bagmati Province and Suryamukhi cooperative are planning to distribute NPR 2/liter to milk-producing farmers as an incentive. The chilling vat helped increase farmers' profits and boost their interest in commercial milk production. Interviews with women milk-producers opined that with the profits from milk, they were able to send their children to good schools and meet their household expenses. It was said that operating the chilling vat decreased the “post-harvest losses” associated with the production of milk. The cooperative is developing a five-year plan which is especially focused on the market development of dairy products. The chilling vat helped to increase the food security of the community by providing an impressive income. b. Contributed to resilience and inclusive economic recovery The majority of the livelihood schemes selected had limited budgets. Out of the total 536 livelihood schemes, the budgets of 426 schemes (80%) were less than NPR 500,000 (a sum that includes the contributions of CILRP, local governments and communities) and 92 schemes (17%) greater than NPR 500,000. Another 18 schemes (3%) had budgets greater than NPR 500,000 funded by CILRP only. Local people’s feeling of ownership towards the infrastructure suggests that social capital is strong. Transparency was maintained in both decision-making and financial management. UCs are now able to enforce rules and regulations based on agreed-upon norms. Women and other deprived groups were also involved in formulating and enforcing rules and regulations. This suggests that political capital improved slightly. The collection of money through local employment and livelihood schemes fostered financial capital. With the improvement in these different capitals, people's resilience and capacities

33 | P a g e

were slowly increased. In order to harvest the benefits, there is a need for institutional backstopping to run the infrastructure. There is also a need for the promotion and diversification of livelihoods. For example, the value of farm products to be added through processing, grading, packaging, branding and diversification. The construction of a goat-breeding center in Dhading and the establishment of a community seed bank (nine banks in Kavre and Sindhupalchowk) generated rural income. Establishment of a market center, an agriculture collection center, and an agro-processing center as well as the upgrading of watermills (in Rasuwa District), the promotion of solar dryer technology to upscale agro-processing businesses and the establishment of rustic stores (in Nuwakot and Gorkha) helped to increase the resilience of local people. These achievements have helped them to bounce back to normalcy. c. Increased the knowledge and skills needed for income generation CILRP promoted local products based business like cardamom drying, pickle processing, etc. in the project areas. The women in Thangsingbesi of Kavre opined that women-led income-generating schemes increased their incomes and, as a result, empowered them economically. Women involved in re-usable sanitary pad production in Nuwakot were highly encouraged by the knowledge and skills they acquired. They are confident that they could utilize this skill to earn additional income in the future. Women are now well-versed in technology and feel a greater sense of self-esteem and self-confidence. In the majority of the schemes visited, women said, "Now we have built leadership skills and we are more capable of interacting with other rights holders and duty bearers and have better decision-making skills, thereby helping us to claim our rights and entitlements." When their self-respect grew and they felt more dignified, poor and marginalized women felt empowered. They also reported that discrimination against them had decreased.

CILRP facilitated the building of a rustic store in Pokhare, Piskar of Sindhupalchok, which enabled communities to store potato seed and thus functioned as a lifeline. The store was also used as a storage center for a potato research scheme. Seven varieties of potatoes were stored there for research purpose. The building was also used for a research project implemented by LI-BIRD, Scaling up Climate-Resilient Agriculture for Sustainable Livelihood of Smallholder Farmers in Nepal. d. Increased knowledge and understanding of disaster risk reduction With funding support from IMC, a total of 16 training events in DRR (though the target was 45) were organized in project districts. These events helped to sensitize communities to disaster and climate risks and their impacts on community infrastructures and livelihood schemes now and in the future. Even so, while constructing community infrastructures, the probable risks from floods, landslides, fires, lightning and windstorms were not adequately assessed and, hence, were not mainstreamed into the project's designs. In order to reduce the probable risks, community infrastructures were renovated using gabion work, source protection, bio-engineering and slope-stabilizing measures. By adhering to building codes, community buildings, collection centers, and health posts got closer to being earthquake-resilient. In short improvement in livelihood capital, DRR training, and the mainstreaming of climate and disaster risks in the design (though it is still minimal) helped local communities to face future shocks and stresses and improve their resilience capacities. e. Provided employment opportunities locally CILRP was designed so that it would generate local employment and quick income from livelihood schemes. CILRP not only helped communities to increase their accessibility to basic services through the construction and or rehabilitation of community infrastructure but also created short-term employment opportunities focusing on the poor, women, Dalits, single women-headed households and other marginalized people. The CfW schemes provided a significant amount of short-term employment in the programme districts. For example, in Arukhark of Sindhupalchowk, Dalit women proudly said, "For the first time, we Dalits were involved in local employment provided by the project and earned NPR 3,000 to NPR 7,000 per household. With this income, we have started to scale up our business ventures and invest in education to our children."

34 | P a g e

f. Responses to the COVID-19 crisis CILRP employed multiple approaches, including relief assistance to COVID-19-impacted people through CfW schemes, recovery and post-recovery/development work through livelihood promotion initiatives to reach poor, vulnerable, and marginal communities. The CfW schemes were applied for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of community infrastructure that provides direct cash inflow to affected communities, particularly targeting daily wage workers and migrant returnees who lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Livelihood schemes helped people resume their daily lives, reduced their vulnerabilities, and increased their capacity to face future disasters. Through CfW, more than 114,000 person-days of employment were generated locally. g. The project's effects i. Direct effects: The direct effects of CILRP included generating local employment through the construction of community infrastructures, increasing accessibility through the improvement of foot trails, increasing access to services through irrigation and drinking water schemes, and improving income through livelihood schemes. These schemes have contributed in building physical, social and financial assets which are the foundation for the long term development of local communities. Some of the long-term effects that the livelihood schemes generated were (i) increasing capacity to develop business plans to run schemes in a sustainable way, (ii) creating jobs for poor and vulnerable communities locally through community infrastructure and livelihood schemes, (iii) providing assurance of income opportunities through business promoting livelihood schemes, and (iv) creating local employment opportunities that take into account local people’s enhanced skills and knowledge. It was said that CILRP's matching fund approach was followed by UNDP’s other projects, including CMDP and VCDP. UNICEF is also using the matching fund modality in its projects. Gorkha Municipality has committed to replicating CILRP’s partnership model in other development projects in order to maximize synergetic impacts. ii. Indirect effects: Some of the indirect effects included a decrease in the workload of people, especially women and girls, through drinking water and irrigation schemes, a reduction in the drudgery of women and girls, an increase in the confidence of women and a boost in their leadership qualities, a reduction in the rate of youth migration, and an improvement of the facilities (water, food, irrigation, employment, etc.) in project communities. Some of the improved technologies viz. mini tiller, millet thresher, and grinding mill also helped to reduce women's workload. For example, in Chhitte Dovan Irrigation System of Mandan Deupur Kavre, community people established a brick factory with the use of irrigation canal to renovate/construct their house. iii. Negative effects: In some community-based businesses run in group approach, like fish ponds, not all households are equally involved; instead, only a few elites benefit. The tools and equipment CILRP provided to increase farm productivity are now used by a few elite farmers who are expanding their enterprises. Similarly, the use of district norms in a construction project has encouraged UCs to produce manipulated bills to adjust the cost because the rates of materials and the number of skilled and unskilled laborers reported differed greatly from the actual rates and numbers. Thus, UCs feel compelled to manipulate the bills and prepare them according to the estimate. This fact, in some instances, created misunderstandings between UCs and general users. iv. Unintended effects: CILRP also helped to promote the open defecation free (ODF) campaign18 of the Nepal government. For instance, in Roshi Rural Municipality of Kavre, local-level stakeholders admired the role CILRP played in the ODF declaration by ensuring a supply of water. It helped to overcome a typical problem of the past, when many toilets were used to store dry grass.

18On 30 September 2019, the Government of Nepal is hosting a national celebration to mark an important sanitation milestone. That is – nationwide – open defecation is no longer tolerated in the country. Nepal is showing the world that with a united front and unified mission, every household can have access to a toilet. ODF campaigns were started in December 7, 2011 from Bardiya District of Nepal. 35 | P a g e

5.7 Cross cutting issues

5.7.1 Partnership a. Effectiveness of the partnership model CILRP's partnership model, which involved local governments, partner NGOs, and UCs, was commendable. This model was efficient because it promoted the sharing of human and financial resources. Because of this partnership, the contributions of local governments, community contributions and third parties were 27%, 14%, and 4% respectively. Local government officials admitted that this partnership model really enhanced their capacity and visibility. b. Capacity assessment of partners and capacity-building initiatives Before selecting them, the project assessed its partners’ capacities, focusing on three aspects: institutional, financial and technical. Other criteria used were that partner NGOs had to be based in the concerned district; had to have proven experiences in DRR, recovery and reconstruction; and had to have a good rapport with local governments. An evaluation committee comprised of CILRP/UNDP representatives developed a selection guideline that was strictly adhered to during the selection of partner NGOs. A competitive bidding process was used. Documents like the minutes of meetings, recommendation letters from ward chairpersons, and details of bank accounts detail were mandatory before agreements were made with UCs.

CILRP partnered with NGOs to channel funds and provide technical support to UCs and beneficiary communities. As called for by the UNDP’s grant procedures, within one cycle, the maximum amount granted to a single NGO should not be greater than USD 300,000. Hence, based on the amount of work, between one and four partner NGOs were selected in each district in the same project cycle. Though this approach added to the administrative costs of the project, working with different partner NGOs also added value in terms of the quality and timely completion of the work. The officials of the partner NGOs in the districts visited said that, with the involvement of CILRP, they were able to build their leadership quality and develop the capacity to mobilize large funds within a limited time. Though the amount of capacity-building and institutional development support provided to partner NGOs was limited within the CILRP's design, the capacity of NGOs in implementing recovery projects and partnering with local governments was enhanced to a large extent.

There were two layers of project management for the implementation of this project: a project management office in each district and partner NGOs. Except in Kavre, there was a district coordinator (normally someone with an engineering background) in each project districts. Livelihood supports were provided through livelihood officer stationed at the CILRP/UNDP office in Kathmandu. Partner NGOs recruited some technical and social staff (including finance staff) to execute the project’s activities. District coordinators supervised partner NGO staff and supported technical monitoring. Partner NGOs were also involved in monitoring activities designed to ensure quality control and make payment to UCs. The role of the local government was to approve the schemes, provide technical monitoring and recommend payment. Interactions conducted with stakeholders as part of this evaluation revealed that the present state of organizational management is appropriate. Local government officials said that the project could achieve its targets within the stipulated time with quality if the required number of local technicians were recruited from partner NGOs and local governments. c. Alignment of CILRP's overall objectives with the capacities of partner NGOs The majority of partner NGOs were involved in the emergency response right after the 2015 earthquake. Since the partner NGOs had worked with many development agencies over the years, they were familiar with issues related to early recovery, recovery and reconstruction designed to achieve resilience and inclusive economic recovery. Partner NGOs were selected so that CILRP's actions were aligned with the priorities, capacities and their proven experiences. This has also

36 | P a g e

contributed in building capacities of local NGOs. Since they are locally based, they are more aware of local needs and gaps, quick implementation was possible. d. Timeliness of project's technical support to partner NGOs Except in Kavre District, CILRP relied on district coordinators to provide timely technical support to partner NGOs to ensure that the quality of work was good. The district coordinators ensured that there was timely technical support and proper guidance. Because of the COVID-19 context and the associated fear, technical inputs were virtual and did not involve visits to sites. Visual inspection and face-to-face interactions were limited to the last phase of the project.

By involving partner NGOs in community infrastructures, livelihood schemes and the CfW approach as per the spirit of recovery, they built their capacity to design similar projects in the future to reduce the impacts of possible future disasters. Officials of partner NGOs opined that DRR-centered training with drills, tools, and resources to deal with multi-hazards was inadequate. e. Partnership approach: UCs and the bidding process Except for the health facilities construction project with KOICA support in Nuwakot, all community reconstruction and livelihood recovery schemes were conducted using the UC approach (through micro-capital grants). In both modalities, public information boards were maintained. However, social audits were not applicable in the case of the competitive bidding process. Even in projects conducted by contractors, locals were given opportunities to engage in unskilled labor works. f. Role of partnerships in the project's overall achievement CILRP's partnership model was highly appreciated by all stakeholders from the federal to the local government levels. The partnership among the UNDP, partner NGOs, local governments and UCs was effective for resource sharing, technical backstopping, and ownership building. As partner NGOs of Sindhupalchowk were very occupied with the activities of multiple donors, sometimes quality time for CILRP was compromised. Since CILRP had a limited budget for each of the scheme, local governments initially had little interest in partnerships. However, with this partnership model, it was possible to achieve the project's results despite several adversities. In the future, the size of funds for schemes needs to be increased by reducing the number of projects and synchronizing with local governments planning cycle’s so that local governments are interested in partnerships that can potentially generate larger impacts. In some schemes, including foot trail construction in Panchakanya- 1, Nuwakot, under the CfW scheme and the Ramkot collection center construction in Dhading, UCs seemed to function as 'mini-contractors,' thereby eroding the real spirit of partnership. Pre-project trainings and orientations are therefore crucial to avoid such situation. There is a need to pay more attention to select schemes that benefit target groups as well as to finalize schemes at the ward level and avoid political influence as much as possible.

5.7.2 GESI a. Address the issues of gender and marginalized groups in design, implementation and monitoring The project addressed gender issues and the issues of marginalized groups while designing, implementing and monitoring the project. The designs of community infrastructures and livelihood schemes were made with the use of low-cost and simple technology so that women and marginalized groups could operate and get benefits from those schemes. Women-friendly technologies were adopted in the design and subsequent implementation of livelihood schemes; thus, women’s workload and drudgery were reduced. Projects were formulated in such a way that they would generate local employment and that could engage women from marginalized groups. Technologies specifically targeted to address women’s practical needs, like reusable sanitary pad-making, were also introduced as an enterprise in Nuwakot District.

In Tapley of Gorkha, the construction of a madrasa helped Muslim children to learn their language and promoted their culture. The provision of drinking water facilities in Gorkha Municipality for the Muslim

37 | P a g e

community reduced the extent of discrimination they had faced for generations. A total of 202 PwD benefitted from livelihood schemes at the individual level in coordination with Handicap International. Likewise, taan (weaving) support for making carpets, duna tapari machine for making leaf plates, dalmot machine, sweater-weaving machine, plastic tunnels for vegetable farming, and improved grinding and flour-mill, all targeted at women, were only a few examples. These small but needed livelihood schemes boosted women's income and their confidence.

Women’s groups were linked with local cooperatives and farmers' groups to facilitate the marketing of their local products with a "buy-back guarantee". CfW schemes emphasized the engagement of single women and women from marginalized families. However, there were some issues, too, on the ground. Not all target groups received information about CfW schemes; hence, some were left out of the selection process as each interested person has to fill a form in order to participate in the CfW scheme. Another issue was the daily rate. In Sindhupalchowk, though the daily wage rate for labor at the local level was NPR 1,000 (fixed by municipality) along with two meals and two times snacks, the rate provided by CfW schemes was only NPR 720 (without food), a wage which discouraged some people from participating. In the Katunje Motor Road Maintenance and Drainage Improvement Scheme, of Melamchi-11, Sindhupalchowk, some people were selected on a "first come first serve” basis; hence, some targeted groups were left out. Even though priority was given to women, Dalits, women-headed households and families adversely affected by COVID-19 in terms of providing services and benefits, but elite women have reaped the majority of the project's benefits because of their high levels of literacy and ability to scale up their own livelihood schemes.

The project has promoted positive changes among women, PwDs and marginalized groups. In Thangsingbesi of Kavre, women said that they earned more social recognition once they got involved in committees and groups. Earning more income through livelihood schemes built women’s confidence, leadership qualities and power to negotiate and they became better able to run livelihood schemes and market their products. Women were also involved in local income-generating schemes, both on- and off-farm. With better saving habits and more income, the women felt hopeful for the future and getting through a difficult time. Women said that compared to the pre-project scenario, their level of empowerment had increased drastically. Gender roles are still practiced within families and in society. In particular, women still have to wake up early to finish household tasks so that they can participate in meetings and project work. In the project, the proportions of women and men as beneficiaries were 52% and 48% respectively. Households headed by single women comprised 5% of the total households benefited. However, the representation of women in UCs, particularly in executive roles, is still not yet satisfactory. Altogether 5,480 PwDs benefited from different schemes offered by CILRP. b. Alignment of UNDP’s GESI policy with project management structure GESI diversity was used as far as practicable while recruiting staff at partner NGOs and CILRP itself. For instance, in CILRP, out of the total of 13 staff members, only four are women, including two field- based women engineers. Despite their being a GESI and a child policy, GESI diversity in the executive boards and among staff members was assessed before selecting partner NGOs, the number of women staff is still limited. The institutional capacity, human resource management (including GESI diversity in executive board and staff), financial and technical capacity of partner NGOs were also properly analyzed before they were selected, thereby aligning with UNDP's GESI policy (2017). But there were several rooms to mainstream GESI from the beginning i.e. while collecting data, programme designing, implementing and monitoring the project by developing SMART indicators in order to gauze each results over the period of project tenure.

5.7.2 Human right a. Benefits and impacts of the project on target groups The human rights-based approach (HRBA) was integrated with the project's processes to some extent.

38 | P a g e

CILRP gives priority to those projects which benefit people from marginalized communities and with cover maximum beneficiary HHs. The project’s monitoring system and data disaggregation also work to ensure that people from disadvantaged communities benefit from the project's support. Through partner NGOs, the project also indirectly influenced local governments to include HRBA in the planning processes of local governance. The bottom-up and participatory approaches promoted by the project helped to foster ownership among rights holders and enable them to influence duty bearers to claim their rights and entitlements.

Although CILRP established the principle of equal wages for men and women in its payment system for CfW and local employment, there are still some gaps. Despite prevailing norms and standards and project's continuous follow-up, there were still cases of unequal pay between men and women. For example, women received half of the men’s wage rate in Aaptari-Mahatefat irrigation canal renovation project in Panchkanya-1, Nuwakot. The reason given was that the work men do is harder than the work women do.

Furthermore, hazard, vulnerability and capacity analysis was not thoroughly in place so it could not be used to identify the types and extents of vulnerabilities induced by different hazards or their existing capacities in order to formulate mitigation measures that could reduce risks. The representation of women and people from marginalized communities in the UCs is still meager in the visited schemes, especially in executive positions. Although it is mandatory, women’s representation in UCs is just a token in majority of the schemes visited. Women largely fill no position other than treasurer in UCs. b. Integration of HRBA in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project The collection of disaggregated data by the project was praiseworthy, and local government officials also replicated this approach in their own management of their databases. Based on disaggregated data, approaches were adjusted to encourage the participation of target groups in the project’s work and services. Consultation with project stakeholders and beneficiaries revealed that Dalits, ethnic minorities, PwDs, women and other marginalized groups benefit from the project's services. The project employed positive discrimination and affirmative action in some cases. For example, in collaboration with and technical assistance from Handicap International, a total of 202 PwDs were supported through individual livelihood schemes. Though the project’s approach to livelihood support was group, not individual-oriented, positive discrimination was employed to serve previously unserved PwDs. In Khanigaon of Likhu Rural Municipality, Khanchock, in Nuwakot, a group of single women was supported through the community building cum training center where the project started its livelihood schemes, and initial progress has been very impressive. The buildings of health posts and collection centers were provisioned with elderly-friendly toilets which had commodes instead of pans. It was mandatory to install a ramp in every community structure built by the project so that people using wheelchairs could access them.

Although disasters are unfortunate, they sometimes provide opportunities for socio-economic transformation. In order to establish the "right to food" of vulnerable people in the post-disaster recovery phase, CILRP held a series of consultations and meetings with partner NGOs, civil society organizations and local governments. CILRP also helped local communities to secure food to some extent through CfW and livelihood schemes. The trend of emphasizing those who are most in need and vulnerable as targets for long-term recovery and reconstruction not only to restore lost assets but also to rebuild social, economic and physical infrastructures is slowly emerging. The right to food is provisioned in Nepal's Constitution 2015 and partner NGOs and local government have started to mainstream HRBA approach in their plans and policies, but continuous advocacy and campaigns are still needed.

39 | P a g e

6. Good practices and lessons learnt

6.1 Good practices • Tripartite partnership approach: Working in tandem with local governments has the added value of not just enabling the leverage of government resources but also building technical capacity and boosting long-term sustainability. • Provision of matching funds: Matching funds and working on projects selected by local governments proved to be efficient, effective and transparent in project implementation and helped promote its sustainability. This modality created opportunities to leverage government and community resources but sometimes delayed the project's process. These practices were also adopted by other programs within the UNDP’s country portfolio. • Selection of low-cost, labor-intensive and simple technology-based schemes: This approach resulted in a high degree of ownership among communities and fostered the sustainability of the scheme. Labor- intensive and small-scale construction and mitigation work attracted the interest of local people because they generated local employment and revived local economy. • Blend of structural and non-structural activities: This combination addressed the full range of needs and aspirations of earthquake-affected communities. Small-scale infrastructures with blend of structural and non-structural activities serve as a good entry point for mobilizing marginalized communities left out by mainstream development. • Flexibility in community contributions: Because beneficiary communities did not have to make a mandatory cash contribution but instead just a labor contribution they were keen to participate in the project's work. Deciding to include community contributions in kind and time instead of requiring monetary contributions encouraged the participation of the community people. • Women and PwD-specific intervention: Support for women-specific enterprises empowered them economically and also helped them to meet practical gender-associated needs. For example, reusable sanitary pad production in Nuwakot provides readily available, cost-effective and environment friendly sanitary pads to women. Interventions targeted to emerging needs of PwDs helped to increase safe and easy mobility. WASH support in Gorkha district focused to marginalised Muslim communities. Adhering the GESI approach during the design and project implementation helped to hear the voices of voiceless people and to include in decision making. • Promoting local skills and resources: CILRP used integrated approaches on the promotion of indigenous and local skills, technology, and resources for exploring livelihood opportunities. For example- pottery, jewellery making, bamboo handicraft, and many potential businesses based on local resources were promoted by CILRP. Local raw material based green business are cheaper, environment-friendly with prospect for longer-term sustainability.

6.2 Lessons learnt • Use of existing social platforms: Working with pre-registered and existing farmers’ groups and cooperatives where possible speeded progress and saved time and resources. • Selection of need-based and demand-driven schemes: Selecting demand-driven schemes ensured greater participation and contributions in kind and materials from community members. Gender- friendly schemes encouraged the involvement of women. • Participation of multiple stakeholders reduced the duplication of work: Involvement of stakeholders, including local governments, farmers' groups, and cooperatives among others, in the selection of schemes meant that there were few or no conflicts among beneficiaries, promoted local ownership, and reduced the chance of work being duplicated. Community participation was greater in those projects where communities got immediate benefits at the individual level, for example, the rehabilitation and reconstruction of irrigation canals. • Partnership approach: Projects and programs can better contribute to the effective mobilization of local government resources if they work through a partnership modality that puts local governments in a leadership role.

40 | P a g e

• Capacity-building of local governments: Despite the genuine commitment and public accountability of local governments, the capacity to manage projects needs to be enhanced. For this, CILRP ould coordinate with Provincial and Local Governance Support Programme that has exclusive mandate for building local and provincial government capacities.

7. Conclusions and recommendations

7.1 Conclusions The findings of the evaluation suggest that CILRP’s performance in delivering community-based infrastructures and livelihood recovery initiatives within a short period of time was exemplary. The outputs delivered within the project period exceeded its targets, reaching slightly above 800,000 people in the ten project districts. Its outstanding performance was made possible due to a partnership among CILRP, central and local governments, NGO partners and the UCs at large. CILRP was highly relevant in the post-earthquake context: it addressed the pertinent recovery needs of earthquake-affected people contributing to the priority needs identified by the PDNA. To some extent, CILRP was successful in filling gaps in the recovery needs of earthquake-impacted people through small-scale infrastructures and livelihood schemes. However, the coverage and the scale of CILRP was still small in comparison to people’s needs. Location-specific needs, for example, the reconstruction of health facilities in Nuwakot, the reconstruction of earthquake-damaged drinking water and irrigation systems in Sindhupalchowk, Nuwakot, Kavre and Gorkha will have far-reaching impacts in terms of increasing communities’ access to basic services. The community-based multipurpose buildings, collection centers, and cooperative buildings built by CILRP have significance in their use as common facilities and platforms to link a local product with markets and market actors. CILRP’s collaboration with local governments on project implementation was outstanding and contributed to the efficient and effective utilization of resources in local government-led projects. However, the opportunity for functional collaboration among programs within UNDP’s portfolio and outside was overlooked because of the shortness of the programme and the differences in project locations. Adoption of the learning and practices of other programme outside UNDP was also inadequate.

On the sustainability front, the CILRP's performance was moderate. O&M roles and responsibilities for community infrastructures have not been adequately established. However, the commitments of local government representatives to allocate funds for the O&M of community infrastructure are worth appreciating.

CfW schemes were instrumental in providing short-term employment to local people during the COVID-19 crisis. Large numbers of people who had lost their jobs and opportunities to earn daily wages received short-term employment opportunities locally and thus were able to cope with daily household needs. The expected outcomes of the livelihood initiatives may help people to resume their daily lives, reduce their vulnerabilities, and increase their resilience and capacity to cope with and adapt to future disasters.

7.2 Recommendations While designing a similar project for livelihood recovery and community-based infrastructure development that considers resilience and inclusive economic recovery, keeping the following recommendations in mind are suggested. i. Impart induction, capacity-building and emphasize institutionalization: Design at least one-month "development phase" for induction on the project's details, orientation to the contributions required and sustainability planning (O&M funds, etc.), sharing standard criteria for selecting schemes from municipalities, forming or reforming committees, registering those committees, and imparting technical training. Develop and share human resources modalities from the beginning in order to

41 | P a g e

curtail possible disputes. Build local government capacity in implementing an inclusive and rights-based development approach and a deliberative decision-making process. Support to induct and roll out the guidelines to work using the users’ committee approach developed by the MoFAGA at the local government level to reduce contradictions between the rules of NGOs and those of UCs in the settlements of expenses. Ensure that at least 5% of total project's cost is allocated to an O&M fund to ensure the sustainability of the schemes during the development phase. ii. Enhance internal and external coherence for synergy: Promote a mechanism to ensure internal and external coherence from the very beginning of the programme by mapping the agencies and actors working in the project areas to promote the idea- and resource-sharing and synergy. While designing livelihood schemes, use the years-long experience of the MEDEP in entrepreneurship development for sustainable and market-led livelihood promotion. Design a flexible approach to selecting enterprises so that they can be either group-based or individual as contexts, needs and interests might differ, and a group approach might not be always feasible. Use the technical expertise of the enterprise development facilitators of the MEDPA in the selection and promotion of enterprises. iii. Synchronize project planning with local government planning: Synchronize project planning with local government planning and the budgeting cycle so that matching funds can be ensured right from the beginning. Synchronization may also reduce political influence in project selection. Inform authorities of the UNDP’s programmatic priorities during the municipal planning phase in order to help to align municipal plans with UNDP's priorities and SDGs. Design livelihood schemes to match micro-climate conditions, seasonality, the proven experiences of people, the local resources available, and the guaranteed market infrastructures determined by a thorough assessment. Design livelihood schemes that are compatible with the government's already defined agriculture-and-livestock pocket areas for resource-sharing, synergy and sustainability. A six-month project cycle is too short to (i) manage preliminary work (induction, sensitization, community preparedness, etc.), and (ii) institutional capacity-building. Design a "recovery project" that lasts at least 10 to 12-month duration to ensure systematic service delivery, good-quality work, the institutionalization of communities and UCs and the sustainability of the schemes. iv. Reach previously unreached sections: Take poverty pockets and marginalized and unreached areas as identified by MoLMCPA and reflected in municipal level disaster risk management plan to prioritize projects and to target beneficiaries to ensure inclusive and rights-based development. Conduct vulnerability assessments and barrier analysis to ensure that women and the most vulnerable sections of the society benefit from the programme. Develop a mechanism to link each of the scheme with DRM and CCA plan at local levels. v. Conduct vulnerability assessment and barrier analysis: Conduct this assessment and analysis to ensure that women and the most vulnerable sections of the society benefit from the program. Coordinate with the National Planning Commission, MoLMCPA and MoALD to explore already prepared poverty mapping and identified pockets of poverty as well as of agriculture and livestock pocket areas to integrate project implementation. vi. Manage resources through public-private partnerships: Many local governments requested the UNDP to increase the budget ceilings of sub-projects so that more households could be covered, and tangible results could be demonstrated in an integrated way. In the future, instead of developing small sub- projects, design a few but very strategic projects with increased unit budgets so that local government resources could be harvested to develop a resilient and inclusive economic recovery model village. This mechanism would also reduce the administrative and management costs of the project. Emphasize the provision of co-funding from the private sector as per the spirit of Nepal government's poverty reduction strategies and the third priority area of the Sendai Framework of DRR (2016-2030). vii. Modify technologies to reap maximum benefits from livelihoods: Encourage women’s groups to promote secondary and tertiary products processed from their farm products by providing support for simple

42 | P a g e

processing and post-harvest technologies that add value. Install solar dryers for drying agricultural products like ginger and turmeric because they are a cheap, women-friendly technology that costs little to run (and, with subsidies, to buy) and have many uses and benefits, including the reduction of drudgery. viii. Emphasize the creation of employment and entrepreneurial opportunities for youths: In order to reduce the trend of migration and link the project’s short-term and quick-impact livelihood schemes with the government's long-term programs like the Youth Self-Employment Program. In order to encourage women farmers to participate in livelihood schemes, provide fellowship for the best women entrepreneurs so that they will retain their interest in promoting their businesses. ix. Continue some of the good practices while designing future projects: Continue some of the good practices viz. (i) tripartite partnership approach; (ii) provision of matching funds; and (iii) selection of low-cost, labor-intensive and simple technology-based schemes with blend of structural and non-structural activities targeting to women and PwDs while designing the future similar interventions. x. Emphasis on knowledge management: Strengthen learning and sharing within the programme (from one district to another district and from one partner to another partner), among different programs within the UNDP (e.g. MEDPA, CMDP, VCDP) and beyond. Develop proper guidelines for the selection of livelihood schemes and use the mechanisms and strategies followed by other livelihood programs implemented by development partners within the recovery phase. Carry out detailed documentation of good practices and lessons learned from CILRP as many innovations are already in place and could be replicated in new areas so that other agencies working in recovery through community infrastructures and livelihood interventions could also benefit. Without documentation, practices may erode after sometimes Develop an exit strategy to ensure the sustainability of the project’s schemes. xi. Practice safety and the transfer of risk: Safety, security, risk reduction, and risk transfer are a prerequisite for the success of early recovery projects. To achieve these ends, follow the occupational safety and health guidelines (2017) in construction projects and provide at least minimal safety gear (helmets, boots, gloves, reflective jackets, personal protective equipment, etc.) to construction workers and skilled masons to reduce the risk. Provide group insurance for risk transfer in collaboration with the PMEP and insurance companies. At operation level, the local government could develop occupational safety procedure and manage necessary safety gears at its disposal. xii. Develop dedicated log-frame along with outcome and impact level indicators: The quantitative data were not adequately refined using SMART indicators at outcome or impact level. It was because, project specific logical framework and indicator specific baseline value were not available which also limited the comparative analysis of the findings. In the future, while designing the such programme, develop dedicated log-frame strictly along with outcome and impact level indicators in order to gauze the programme results in the periodic basis. xiii. Mainstream GESI in the programmatic cycle: The programme addressed gender issues and the issues of marginalized groups from the beginning. But there were several rooms to mainstream GESI from the beginning. In order to distribute the projects benefits to all people irrespective of gender and caste/ethnicity, mainstream GESI in the programmatic cycle i.e. collecting baseline data, designing, implementing and monitoring the project. xiv. Mainstream disaster and climate risks in the designs of Community Infrastructure and Livelihood Interventions: Mainstream disaster and climate risk reduction feature in the design as well as the subsequent implementation to ensure the benefits acquired from project-initiated schemes. Ensure that there are safety features in community infrastructures as well as appropriate and cost-effective measures.

43 | P a g e

Annexes Annex 1: Projects by source of fund and duration

Date of Duration Cost/no Project/source Actual Actual agreement of the Anticipated Anticipated cost Remarks of fund Start date End date signed project start date End date extension Implemented No cost through KOICA 10/18/2017 14 months 10/18/2017 10/19/2017 8/31/2018 12/31/2018 extension bidding process Construction work of Hospital waste management system 1 June No cost QRC June 2018 12 months 30-Sep-18 3/31/2019 7/31/2019 building and 2018 extension Dera Gaun drinking water was not completed on time. Fund received RTG Not done 27 months July 2017 10-Sep-18 July 2019 Dec-20 No in September 2018 BHF 3-Sep-16 3 months Sept 2016 21-Oct-16 Dec 2016 12/31/2016 NA NA GoM 3-Jun-15 20 months 4-Jun-15 12/31/2016 NA NA

IMC 30-Sep-16 6 months 9/27/2016 14-Nov-16 3/31/2017 3/31/2017 NA NA

UNDP complements in budget of secured donor. Hence, it is from the beginning from 2015 and will be continued UNDP

Sources: CILRP 2020

Annex 2: List of people interviewed Dhading and Nuwakot districts SN District Name Gender Organization /institution Designation 1 Dhanding Ganesh Dhungana Man Action Nepal Executive Director 2 Dhanding Thankur Dhakal Man Action Nepal Project Engineer 3 Dhanding Ranjan Poudel Man Action Nepal Project Engineer 4 Dhanding Anju Shrestha Woman Action Nepal Finance Officer Dhanding Shambhu Shrestha Man Ramkot commercial goat Chairperson 5 farming Dhanding Santi Shrestha Woman Ramkot commercial goat Vice chairperson 6 farming Dhanding Chak Narayan Shreatha Man Ramkot commercial goat Secretary 7 farming Dhanding Narayan Shrestha Man Ramkot commercial goat Member 8 farming Dhanding Mithu Maya Shtestha Woman Ramkot commercial goat Member 9 farming 10 Dhanding Sharita Shrestha Woman Ramkot collection centre User member 11 Dhanding Narayan Sharstha Man Ramkot collection centre User member 12 Dhanding Ritu Shrestha Woman Ramkot collection centre User member 13 Dhanding Gandga Devi Shrestha Woman Ramkot collection centre User member 14 Dhanding Binod Shrestha Man Ramkot collection centre User member 15 Dhanding Shambhu Shrestha Man Ramkot collection centre User member

44 | P a g e

SN District Name Gender Organization /institution Designation Dhanding Ram Kumar Shrestha Man Ramkot collection centre Construction committee Vice- 16 chairperson 17 Dhanding Ram Hari Sapkota Man Barbote Thopal Irrigation Chairperson 18 Nuwakot Man Nilakantha Municipality Mayor Nuwako Mani Lamichhane Man Panchakanya Rural Municpality Ward Chair, Ward 19 no 1 Nuwako Ramesh Karki Man Community Health Unit, HA (In-charge ) 20 Panchkanya-1 Nuwako Mashesh Misra Man Community Health Unit, AHW 21 Panchkanya-1 Nuwako Babina Ghimire Woman Community Health Unit, AHW 22 Panchkanya-1 Nuwako Mithu Kumari Rai Woman Community Health Unit, FCHW 23 Panchkanya-1 Nuwako Anita Dhakal Woman Community Health Unit, FCHW 24 Panchkanya-1 Nuwako Bimala Woman Community Health Unit, FCHW 25 Panchkanya-1 Nuwako Shobha Upreti Woman Community Health Unit, FCHW 26 Panchkanya-1 Nuwako Sita Rai Woman Community Health Unit, FCHW 27 Panchkanya-1 Nuwako Dambar Maya Shrestha Woman Community Health Unit, FCHW 28 Panchkanya-1 Nuwako Bishnu Maya Rai Woman Community Health Unit, FCHW 29 Panchkanya-1 Nuwako Naba Raj Rai Man Aaptari-Mahatefat Irrigation Chairperson (CfW) Construction 30 committee Nuwako Manoj Kumar Rai Man Aaptari-Mahatefat Irrigation 31 (CfW) Nuwako Kiran Rai Man Aaptari-Mahatefat Irrigation Vice chairperson (CfW) Construction 32 committee Nuwako Raju Rai Man Aaptari-Mahatefat Irrigation Member 33 (CfW) Nuwako Usha Rai Woman Aaptari-Mahatefat Irrigation Treasurer 34 (CfW) Nuwako Bir Bahadur Tamang Man Danadatole Pipalgari Trail (CfW) Chairperson- Construction 35 committee 36 Nuwako Sambhu Tamang Man Danadatole Pipalgari Trail (CfW) Worker Nuwako Som Bahadur Tamang Man Danadatole Pipalgari Trail (CfW) Vice Chairperson- Construction 37 committee 38 Nuwako Som B Tamang Man Danadatole Pipalgari Trail (CfW) Worker 39 Nuwako Airam Tamag Man Danadatole Pipalgari Trail (CfW) Worker Nuwako Suresh Shrestha Man Danadatole Pipalgari Trail (CfW) Secretary- Construction 40 committee Nuwako Dhan Kumar Manandhar Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Participant 41 1 Nuwako Lakshmi Bagale Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Participant 42 1 Nuwako Goma Mailanli Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Participant 43 1 Nuwako Thuli Maya Mijar Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Participant 44 1 Nuwako LaKshmi Upreti Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Participant 45 1 Nuwako Sandhya Manandhar Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Participant 46 1

45 | P a g e

SN District Name Gender Organization /institution Designation Nuwako Sabitri Barkoti Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Trainer 47 1 Nuwako Menuka Mijar Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Participant 48 1 Nuwako Sushila Mijar Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Participant 49 1 Nuwako Pramila Manandhar Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Participant 50 1 Nuwako Shanti Manandhar Woman Tailoring Training , Panchakanya- Participant 51 1 Nuwako Santoshi Adhikari Woman Reusable Sanitary Production Participant 52 training , Nuwakot-4 Nuwako Shabha Adhikari Woman Reusable Sanitary Production Participant 53 training , Nuwakot-4 Nuwako Niruta Thapa Woman Reusable Sanitary Production Participant 54 training , Nuwakot-4 Nuwako Prerana Adhikari Woman Reusable Sanitary Production Participant 55 training , Nuwakot-4 Nuwako Pragati Shrestha Woman Reusable Sanitary Production Participant 56 training , Nuwakot-4 Nuwako Sushila Thapa Woman Reusable Sanitary Production Participant 57 training , Nuwakot-4 Nuwako Durga Adhikari Woman Reusable Sanitary Production Participant 58 training , Nuwakot-4 Nuwako Sangita Thapa Woman Reusable Sanitary Production Participant 59 training , Nuwakot-4 Nuwako Pabitra Thapa Woman Reusable Sanitary Production Participant 60 training , Nuwakot-4 Nuwako Sanu Thapa Woman Reusable Sanitary Production Participant 61 training , Nuwakot-4 62 Nuwako Min Bdr KC Man RUDEC Chairperson 63 Nuwako Panchkanya Rural Municipality Chairperson

Sindhupalchok and Kavre districts

SN District Name Gender Organization /institution Designation 1 Sindhupalchowk Mitra Lal Chaulagain Man Suryamukhi Cooperative Chairperson 2 Sindhupalchowk Keshav Chaulagain Man Vat operation committee Secretary Sindhupalchowk Shiva Prasad Sapkota Man Suryamukhi Cooperative Loan 3 coordinator 4 Sindhupalchowk Megh Nath Sapkota Man CDECF Staff 5 Sindhupalchowk Kul Pd Chaulagain Man Suryamukhi Cooperative Secretary Sindhupalchowk Bhimsen Pd Man Suryamukhi Cooperative Vice chairperson 6 Chaulagain 7 Sindhupalchowk Ichha Maya Tamang Woman Suryamukhi Cooperative General member 8 Sindhupalchowk Parbari Chaulagain Woman Suryamukhi Cooperative General member 9 Sindhupalchowk Geeta Sapkota Woman Suryamukhi Cooperative General member 10 Sindhupalchowk Pramila Tamang Woman Suryamukhi Cooperative General member Sindhupalchowk Geeta Tiwari Woman Lalhira Farmers Group (Koseli Chairperson 11 Ghar) 12 Sindhupalchowk Rishi Pd Tiwari Man Lalhira Farmers Group (Koseli Member Ghar) 13 Sindhupalchowk Nahakul Pd Tiwari Man Lalhira Farmers Group (Koseli Member Ghar) 14 Sindhupalchowk Kandina Tiwari Woman Lalhira Farmers Group (Koseli Member Ghar) 15 Sindhupalchowk Raj Kumar Bhattarai Man Lalhira Farmers Group (Koseli Member Ghar) 16 Sindhupalchowk Ram Saran Dulal Man Arukhark Irrigation Scheme Secretary 17 Sindhupalchowk Ram Chandra Dulal Man Arukhark Irrigation Scheme Member 18 Sindhupalchowk Salik Ram Dulal Man Arukhark Irrigation Scheme Member 19 Sindhupalchowk Dev Narayan Dulal Man Arukhark Irrigation Scheme Member 20 Sindhupalchowk Deepak Pd Dulal Man Arukhark Irrigation Scheme Member

46 | P a g e

SN District Name Gender Organization /institution Designation 21 Sindhupalchowk Gayatri Dulal Woman Arukhark Irrigation Scheme Treasurer 22 Sindhupalchowk Somnath Man Katunje Motor Road UC Member Biwswokarma 23 Sindhupalchowk Suntali Tamang Woman Katunje Motor Road UC Member 24 Sindhupalchowk Heera Ramtel Woman Katunje Motor Road UC Member 25 Sindhupalchowk Januka Dulal Woman Katunje Motor Road UC Member 26 Sindhupalchowk Parbati Woman Katunje Motor Road UC Member 27 Sindhupalchowk Manumaya Dulal Woman Katunje Motor Road UC Member 28 Sindhupalchowk Govinda Sapkota Man CDECF ED 29 Sindhupalchowk Ichharam Sapkota Man CDECF Staff 30 Sindhupalchowk Damber Bahadur Man Melamchi Municipality Mayor Aryal 31 Kavre Dal Bahadur Lama Man Roshi Rural Municipality Chairperson 32 Kavre Laxmi Bartaula Upreti Woman Roshi Rural Municipality Vice-chairperson 33 Kavre Tirtha Raj Thing Man Koselighar Secretary 34 Kavre Sankha Buddha Lama Man Shanti Jana Adarsha Sewa Kendra ED 35 Kavre Kamal Lama Tamang Woman Shanti Jana Adarsha Sewa Kendra PC 36 Kavre Prem Pd Neupane Man Thangsingbesi drinking water Chairperson scheme 37 Kavre Sabitra Neupane Woman Thangsingbesi drinking water Water user scheme 38 Kavre Sarala Tamang Woman Thangsingbesi drinking water Water user scheme 39 Kavre Deuri Ramtel Woman Thangsingbesi drinking water Water user scheme 40 Kavre Batuli Lama Woman Thangsingbesi drinking water Water user scheme 41 Kavre Premalata Upreti Woman Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme Irrigation user 42 Kavre Pradeep Upreti Man Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme Chairperson 43 Kavre Madhav Adhikari Man Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme Treasurer 44 Kavre Sanale Tamang Man Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme Irrigation user 45 Kavre Dal Bahadur Lama Man Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme Irrigation user 46 Kavre Geeta Adhikari Woman Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme Irrigation user 47 Kavre Sonakshi Lama Woman Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme Irrigation user UNDP Project 1 Kathmandu Ramji Neupane Man MEDEP National Project Manager 2 Kathmandu Chiranjibi Adhikari Man VCDP Team Leader 3 Kathmandu Suman Manandhar Man CMDP Team Leader UNDP CO 1 Kathmandu Vijaya P Singha Man UNDP Advisor, Resilience 2 Kathmandu Dharma Sawornakar Man UNDP Policy Advisor; Inclusive Economic Growth Portfolio 3 Kathmandu Kalpana Sarkar Woman UNDP Portfolio Manager; Inclusive Economic Growth 4 Kathmandu Kamal Raj Sigdel Man UNDP Head of communication 5 Kathmandu Binda Magar Woman UNDP Gender and Social Inclusion Advisor PEB Members 1 Kathmandu Ramesh Adhikari Man PEB Member 2 Kathmandu Lekhnath Neupane Man PEB Member

Annex 3: List of sub-projects/schemes visited during evaluation fieldwork 1. Bhotechaur Milk Collection Center, Melamchi-1, Sindhupalchowk 2. Koselighar operation, Melamchi-12, Sindhupalchowk (ward 12) 3. Arukhark Irrigation System, Melamchi-11, Sindhupalchowk 4. Katunje Motor Road Maintenance and Drainage Improvement Scheme, Melamchi-11, Sindhupalchowk 5. Neubise irrigation Scheme at Kuntabesi/Kavre 6. Thangsingbesi drinking water scheme, Rosy- 7, Kavre 7. Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme, Rosy- 7, Kavre

47 | P a g e

8. Koseli Ghar, Rosy-7, Kavre 9. Commercial Goat Farming, Nilkantha-8, Dhading 10. Ramkot Sankalan Kendra, Nilkantha-8, Dhading 11. Community Health Facility, Panchakanya-1, Nuwakot 12. Multipurpose Training Hall, Panchakanya-1, Nuwakot 13. Re-use Sanitary Pad-making Scheme, Pachakanya-4, Nuwakot 14. Kalchhe-Dandagaun Foot Trail Scheme, Panchakanya-1, Nuwakot 15. Barbote -Kunduletar- Thopal Khola Irrigtion Scheme, Nuwakot

48 | P a g e

Annex 4: Evaluation criteria and questions Contents Model evaluation criteria and/or questions Indicator(s) Means and sources of Sources of information verification 1. Findings: Relevance: Relevance: • Desk review of project • Interviews with • Relevance • How relevant were the overall design and approaches of the project? • Extent to which Project supports design and technical project • To what extent the project was able to address the needs and priorities national priorities, policies and documents; national partners and of the target groups and communities in the crisis context and changing strategies policies and strategies stakeholders conditions (both after 2015 earthquake and during COVID-19 pandemic)? • Extent to which the project is (including GoN, UNDP and analysis • To what extent did the intervention bring benefits to earthquake affected aligned with national priority, and WFP); thereof communities, poor women and people from traditionally excluded groups? SDGs and UNDP’s country • Interviews with project • and report • To what extent were the output level results achieved and how did the support strategy staff management, analysis project contribute to project outcomes? Does the project contribute to • Degree to which the project project partners (incl. the outcome and output of the CPD? Were there any unintended positive supports aspirations and/or former staff), or negative results? expectations of stakeholders and stakeholders (local and • To what extent the project address special need and priorities of women, beneficiaries (incl. females) national government persons with disability and marginalised people? • Number of project indicators entities, private sector, • To what extent the reprogramming of project activities (cash for work) with GESI universities/NGOs) and for immediate COVID-19 response are relevant to meet the local needs? • Adequacy of project design and UNDP staff and PEB implementation to national members realities and existing capacities • Project proposal, design document 2. Findings: Results and Results and effectiveness Results and effectiveness: • Desk review of project • Interviews with effectiveness • To what extent the project activities were delivered effectively in terms • Level of achievement (as laid design and technical project • Assessment of of quality, quantity and timing? out in the log-frame/results documents other partners and outcomes and • What are the key internal and external factors (success & failure factors) framework, target vs relevant docs stakeholders outputs that have contributed, affected, or impeded the achievements, and how achievements) • Interviews with project and analysis; • Effectiveness UNDP and the partner have managed these factors? • Achievement of outputs staff management, • Document and • To what extent have monitoring arrangements been effective and (qualitative, quantitative) and project partners (incl. report analysis* supported adaptive management? What were the lessons and how were description of activities former staff), • Check with feedback/learning incorporated in the subsequent process of planning and • Evidence of adaptive stakeholders (local and publicly implementation? management and/or early national government available • How effective has the project been in enhancing the capacity of the application of lessons learned entities, NGOs) and information communities and local governments to create enabling environment for • Comparative analysis of Micro- UNDP staff and PEB • FDGs with UCs resilient and inclusive economic recovery? Capital Grants/Low Value members , • To what extent did the project contribute to the CPD outcome and Grants with the local NGO • Review of fund flow outputs, the SDGs, the UNDP Strategic Plan and national development partners (Management cost, and management cost priorities? transparency, governances, at project level • How effective has the project been in responding to the needs of the procurement, audit and • MIS data disaggregated beneficiaries, and what results were achieved? compliance) by gender, eternity • To what extent the project was successful to create short-term • Proportion of women and • UCs related data from employment and income opportunities to the disaster affected people? other marginalised people in CILRIP project team

49 | P a g e

Contents Model evaluation criteria and/or questions Indicator(s) Means and sources of Sources of information verification • What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of two different the total direct beneficiaries • Discussion with implementation modalities and to what extent they have been effective • Number of community led selected UCs for achievement of intended results? initiatives led by women • Observation of project • To what extent the project by SoF has address special needs of women, • Proportion of women sites person with disability representation in UCs • Project progress • To what extent the project introduced technologies contributed to • Number/types of gender report, reduced work load and drudgery among women responsive technologies • Case stories introduced by the project • Training reports • Capacity building events organised to improved skill and knowledge on improved technologies 3. Findings: Implementation and management Implementation and • Desk review of project • Interviews with implementation, • Were adequate project management arrangements in place at project management design and technical project processes and entry? Was there any PEB put in place and how often have these PEBs • Extent to which project partners documents (incl, PIRs; partners and efficiency met? committed time and resources data on budget; other stakeholders • Management and • How have the project management systems, including progress reporting, to the project relevant docs; media and analysis administration administrative and financial systems and monitoring and evaluation system • Extent of commitment of coverage, official thereof • Monitoring and been operating as effective management tools aid in effective partners to take over project notices and press • Document and evaluation systems implementation and provide sufficient basis for evaluating performance activities releases report analysis* • Stakeholder and decision making? Was the information provided by the M&E system • Evidence of clear roles and • Interviews with project engagement and (annual work plans, other) was used to improve performance and to responsibilities for operational staff management, communications adapt to changing needs; Are there any annual work plans? and management structure project partners (incl. • Budget, • Did UNDP and Project staff identify problems in a timely fashion and M&E former staff), expenditures and advice to the project? If so, has the project practicing adaptive • Actual use of the M&E system to stakeholders (local and co-financing; management e.g., (approve modifications in time)? If so, how effective was change or improve decision- national government procurement the adaptive management practiced under the project and lessons learnt? making/adaptive management entities, private sector, • How and the extent to which project management structure is aligned • Share of M&E in the budget universities/NGOs) and with UNDP’s GESI policy • Quality and quantity of progress UNDP staff reports • Interviews with project Assessment of M&E and learning system experts (national and • Was the information provided by the M&E system was used to improve Stakeholders and international) performance and to adapt to changing needs; Are there any annual work communications plans? • Extent to which project partners • To what extent the M&E and learning system captures GESI related committed time and resources information to the project • Was M&E was sufficiently budgeted for at the project planning stage and • Extent of commitment of whether M&E was adequately funded and in a timely manner during partners to take over project implementation. activities Financial planning

50 | P a g e

Contents Model evaluation criteria and/or questions Indicator(s) Means and sources of Sources of information verification • Was the information provided by the M&E system (annual work plans, • Extent to which inputs have been other) was used to improve performance and to adapt to changing needs; of suitable quality and available Financial planning and procurement when required to allow the • Did the project have appropriate financial controls, including reporting Project to achieve the expected and planning, that allowed management to make informed decisions results; regarding the budget and allowed for timely flow of funds? • Timely delivery of funds, • If there was a difference in the level of expected co-financing and the co- mitigation of bottlenecks. financing actually realized, what were the reasons for the variance? Did • Level of satisfaction of partners the extent of materialization of co-financing affect project outcomes and beneficiaries in the use of and/or sustainability, and, if so, in what ways and through what causal funds linkages? • Fund flow mechanism, Efficiency correlation between AWP and • How efficiently were the resources including human, material and financial actual implementation, co- resources used to achieve the results in a timely manner? financing, value for money, • To what extent the fund flow mechanism (MCG/LVG) has been timeliness, number of PEB appropriate and efficient mechanism to leverage the resources to meetings community? • To what extent was the existing project management structure appropriate and efficient in generating the expected results? • To what extent has the project implementation strategy and its execution been efficient and cost-effective? 4. Findings: Coherence Coherence Results and coherence: • Desk review of project • Interviews with • How well the intervention fit in changed context? • Evidence of project design and technical project • To what extent the intervention is coherence with Government’s policies modification based on the documents other partners and To what extent the intervention addressed the synergies and interlinkages external environment relevant docs stakeholders with other interventions carried out by UNDP or Government of Nepal? • synergies and interlinkages • Interviews with and analysis; (internal coherence) with other agencies project's stakeholders • Document and • To what extent the intervention was consistence with other actor’s • Evidence of added value, • Co-funding, co- report analysis interventions in the same context or adding value to avoid duplication of reduce duplication and foster financing the efforts? (External coherence) synergy 5. Findings: sustainability Sustainability Sustainability • Desk review of project • Interviews with and impacts • To what extent are the benefits of the projects likely to be sustained • Extent to which risks and design and technical project • Risks and external after the completion of this project? assumptions are adequate and documents partners and factors • What are the key factors that will require attention in order to are reflected in the project • Interviews with project stakeholders • Replication improve prospects of sustainability of Project outcomes and the documentation staff management, and analysis potential for replication of the approach? • Extent to which project is likely project partners, thereof • How were capacities strengthened at the individual and organizational to be sustainable beyond the stakeholders (local and • Document and level (including contributing factors and constraints)? project; national government report analysis • What could be done to strengthen exit strategies and sustainability • Extent to which main entities, private sector, of the project? stakeholders plan to provide NGOs) and UNDP

51 | P a g e

Contents Model evaluation criteria and/or questions Indicator(s) Means and sources of Sources of information verification Impact sustainability to the project’s staff • To what extent the project outputs were achieved and contribution results in the future, including to outcome level results? commitment of financial • To what extent can the program be related to contribute to resilient resources and inclusive economic recovery through the rehabilitation of • Extent to which partners and community infrastructures and improvement of livelihood? stakeholders are applying new ideas outside of the immediate project context 6. Findings Partnership: • Level of achievement (as laid • Desk review of project • Interviews with Cross cutting themes • How the partnerships affected in the project achievement, and how might out in the log-frame, target vs design and technical project this be built upon in the future? - achievements) documents other partners and • Have the ways of working with the partner and the support to the partner • Achievement of outputs relevant docs UNDP; been effective and did they contribute to the project’s achievements? (qualitative, quantitative) and • Interviews with project • Pros and cons • How does partnership with municipality government and User Committee description of activities staff management, analysis- (UC) work? Does it create synergies or difficulties? What type of • Achievements on partnership, project partners, partnership partnership building mechanism is necessary for future partnership? GESI and human rights stakeholders (local and with LGs • How the partnership with local government (municipality) deviate from • national government • Document and bidding process? What kinds of systems were developed for mutual entities, NGOs) and report analysis accountability between partners, user group and UNDP and how well did UNDP staff and PEB (including they work? members partnership Gender equality and Social Inclusion • Review of fund flow guideline) • To what extent have issues of gender and marginalised groups been and management cost addressed in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project?- at project level • To what extent the project approach was effective in promoting gender • MIS and GESI data equality and social inclusion - particularly focusing on the marginalized and • Review of project's the poor through construction of community infrastructure and livelihood generated case studies recovery interventions? • To what extent has the project promoted positive changes of women, differently abled people and marginalised group? Were there any unintended effects? Human rights • To what extent have Dalit, ethnic minorities, physically challenged, women and other disadvantaged and marginalized groups benefitted from the work of the project and with what impact? • To what extent have project integrated Human Rights based approach in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project? Have the resources been used in an efficient way to address Human Rights in the implementation (e.g. participation of targeted stakeholders, collection of disaggregated data, etc.)?

52 | P a g e

Annex 5: Monitoring Visits by PEB members, donors and UNDP CO Name Agencies When Year Where MoLMCPA 27-28 February 2020 Gorkha Chandrakala Paudel, Joint Secretary Chandrakala Paudel, Joint Secretary Dhading and Nuwakot (Dhunibesi, Gajuri, MoLMCPA 17-19 May 2019 Guthikhet, Anant Kumar Basnet Dhadingbesi, Nilkanth, Thansing, Shivapuri) Mr. Paranya Upadhya MoHP 17-19 January 2019 Nuwakot (Joint Secretary, Sindhupalchowk and 18-Dec 2015 Suresh Pradhan MOCPA) Kavre MocPA 21-22 July 2016 Nuwakot MocPA 11-13 Nov 2017 Rasuwa and Nuwakot Ramesh Adhikari MocPA 21-22 July 2016 Nuwakot MocPA 11-13 Nov 2017 Rasuwa and Nuwakot Tika Ram Sharma MOAD 21-22 July 2016 Nuwakot Ministry of Forest and 21-22 July 2016 Nuwakot Suvash Kumar Sharma Soil Conservation Excellency Ambassador Mr. Yousuf Bin Mohmad Qatar Embassy 27-28 February 2020 Gorkha Mr. Abdel Mounaim Qatar Red Crescent Mr. Abdel Aziz, Country Director Qatar Charity Nepal Sindhupalchowk( Royal Thai His Excellency Bhakavat Tanskul 19-20 February 2019 Helambu and Ambassador to Nepal Indrawati) Kalpana Sarkar Ayshanie Medagangoda-Labé Rafeeque Siddique UNDP 27-28 Feb 2020 Gorkha Niranjana Tamrakar Pravat Mijar Kalpana Sarkar Dhading and Nuwakot Richa Ranjitkar (Dhunibesi, Gajuri, Niranjan Tamrakar 17-19 May 2019 Guthikhet, Suman Shekhar Manandhar Dhadingbesi, Nilkanth, Dipak Dhakal Thansing, Shivapuri) Niranjan Tamrakar Sindhupalchowk( Renaud Meyer UNDP 19-20 Februaru 2019 Helambu and Dharma Swarnakar Indrawati) Kamal Raj Sigdel 22-25 June Kathmandu–Dhulikhel- UNDP 2016 Sindhupalchowk- Michelle Yeoh Dolakha-Kathmandu 22-25 June Kathmandu–Dhulikhel- UNDP 2016 Sindhupalchowk- Renaud Mayer Dolakha-Kathmandu UNDP 27-Apr 2017 Sindhupalchowk UNDP 21-22 July 2016 Nuwakot UNDP 27-Apr 2017 Sindhupalchowk UNDP 6-8 June 2017 Rasuwa and Nuwakot UNDP 11-13 Nov 2017 Rasuwa and Nuwakot Dharma Swarnakar UNDP 10-11 Dec 2018 Nuwakot 22-25 June Kathmandu–Dhulikhel- UNDP 2016 Sindhupalchowk- Dolakha-Kathmandu UNDP 14-16 November 2016 Dhading Kathmandu- Dhulikheli- Rajendra Gurung UNDP 14-16 Dec 2016 Melamchi-Irkhu- Kathmandu UNDP 27-Apr 2017 Sindhupalchowk Kamal Raj Sigdel UNDP 6-8 June 2017 Rasuwa and Nuwakot Sheila Chhetri UNDP 28-Apr 2017 Sindhupalchowk Sophie Kemkhadze UNDP 6-8 June 2017 Rasuwa and Nuwakot Ayshanie Labe UNDP 10-11 Dec 2018 Nuwakot 5-9 Jan Kathmandu-Dhunche- Gatlang- Briddhim- John Narayan Parajuli UNDP 2017 Bidur – Bhadratar- Kathmandu

53 | P a g e

Annex 6: List of documents • Project's proposals (IMC, RTG, QRC, BMF, GoM, KOICA) • Progress reports (IMC, RTG, QRC, BMF, GoM, KOICA) • Annual progress reports (CILRP): 2015-2019 • Annual workplan (2015-2020) • PEB meeting minutes (2015-2019) • Workshop reports • PowerPoint Presentations (PPTs) • MIS data and project database • Key evaluation questions/parameter • MTRs, Donor reports, internal and external monitoring mission reports • UNDP’s GESI Policy/Guidelines • COVID-19 Response programme Document • Success stories /case stories collections (apart from progress report) • Learning documentation, if any • Media coverage (in national and international level)

Annex 7: Target Vs Progress (schemes by project) Number of CI/scheme Number of LI/scheme Number of DRR activities Number of Cfw Schemes Project % of % of % of % of Plan actu achievem Plann Actu achievem Plann Actu achievem Plann Actu achievem ned al ent ed al ent ed al ent ed al ent

IMC 182 124 36 NA NA NA 45 82 21 26 45 16

100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA KOICA 10 10

GoM 86 107 NA NA NA NA NA NA 250 216 130 139

RTG 211 316 NA 160 337 100 316 47

BHF 123 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 13 16

QRC 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 7

UNDP NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 124 52 Sources: CILRP 2020

Annex 8: Beneficiaries households, target vs achievement by project Project HHs benefitted CI HHs benefitted LI HHs benefitted DRR HHs benefitted CfW % of % of % of % of

actual achiev Plann actual achieveme Planned actu achieve Planne actua achieveme Planned ement ed nt al ment d l nt

IMC NA NA NA NA NA 4,999 869 400

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA KOICA 6,761

GoM 110 20,00 96 NA NA NA NA NA NA 25,000 27,611 19,163 0

RTG 666 NA 55,891 NA NA NA NA 5,243 NA 8,000 20,365

BHF 114 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,037 1,179

QRC 606 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,820 11,023

54 | P a g e

Project HHs benefitted CI HHs benefitted LI HHs benefitted DRR HHs benefitted CfW % of % of % of % of

actual achiev Plann actual achieveme Planned actu achieve Planne actua achieveme Planned ement ed nt al ment d l nt UNDP NA 19,431 NA NA 5,194 NA NA NA NA NA 1,343 NA Sources: CILRP 2020

Annex 9: Local short-term employment from construction work by project Total person days Beneficiaries (local employment) Women person days (local Project CI LI DRR CfW HHs generated from employment) generated construction works IMC 82 26 16 NA 6,268 28,070 5,653 KOICA 10 NA NA NA 6,761 NA NA GoM 216 139 NA NA 46,774 57,526 18,299 RTG 347 328 NA 47 5,243 242,087 54,398 BHF 16 NA NA NA 1,179 6,330 924 QRC 7 NA NA NA 11,023 9,637 3,449 UNDP 114 40 NA 7 23,716 24,881 3,544 Sources: CILRP 2020

Annex 10: Beneficiaries details by types of project Project type Beneficiaries IMC KOICA GoM RTG BHF QRC UNDP Total Men 12,107 17,084 64,996 145,443 2,668 19,910 50,753 312,961 Women 12,750 15,870 69,620 149,616 2,608 22,947 63,140 336,551

Person with 181 1,418 944 61 963 202 3,769 Community Disability Infrastructures Women 472 2,352 1,938 52 38 723 5,575 headed HHs Total 24,857 32,954 134,616 295,059 5,276 42,857 113,893 649,512

Men 2,147 37,777 52,676 10,372 102,972

Women 2,118 44,760 56,273 12,317 115,468

12 1,160 543 46 1,761 Livelihoods Person with Initiatives Disability Women 99 1,617 757 184 2,657 headed HHs Total 4,265 - 82,537 108,949 - - 22,689 218,440

Men 403 403

Women 407 407

Person with 10 10 DRR Activities Disability Women 9 9 headed HHs Total 810 ------810

Men 13,330 3,584 16,914

Women 13,385 3,540 16,925

Person with 102 102 CfW Disability Women 192 22 214 headed HHs Total - - - 26,715 - - 7,124 33,839

55 | P a g e

Project type Beneficiaries IMC KOICA GoM RTG BHF QRC UNDP Total Men 14,657 17,084 102,773 211,449 2,668 19,910 64,709 433,250 Women 15,275 15,870 114,380 219,274 2,608 22,947 78,997 469,351 Person with 203 - 2,578 1,589 61 963 248 5,642 Total Disability Women 580 - 3,969 2,887 52 38 929 8,455 headed HHs Total 29,932 32,954 217,153 430,723 5,276 42,857 143,706 902,601 Sources: CILRP 2020

Annex 11: Beneficiaries details by project types and schemes

Single # of Headed Total_ Total_ interventi Total Women Women Men_Po Scheme category on HHs Dalit _HH Janajati_HH Others_HH _HH _Pop p Total Pop CfW 54 6,586 357 4,966 1,263 214 16,925 16,914 33,839 Eco-Tourism 5 1,023 49 866 108 17 2,750 2,774 5,524 Irrigation System 1 45 - 30 15 - 270 210 480 Rural Road /Trails 48 5,518 308 4,070 1,140 197 13,905 13,930 27,835 CI 789 126,895 10,974 70,283 45,638 5,575 336,551 312,961 649,512 Community Building 112 633 - 633 - 3 1,770 1,782 3,552 Drinking Water 142 35,709 3,959 18,590 13,160 976 100,445 85,763 186,208 scheme Eco-Tourism 78 9,307 854 5,695 2,758 662 22,896 22,594 45,490 Irrigation System 300 13,792 507 11,516 1,769 500 28,587 26,503 55,090 Market Facilities 45 20,572 2,002 9,560 9,010 1,368 53,843 52,448 106,291 Rural Energy/ MH 27 23,816 1,261 11,096 11,459 1,147 64,501 63,744 128,245 Rural Road 85 4,200 278 3,377 545 189 9,221 8,417 17,638 DRR 16 400 7 307 86 9 407 403 810 Drinking Water scheme 1 15 - 15 - - 14 12 26 DRR Training 11 301 7 208 86 1 162 167 329 Eco-Tourism 3 68 - 68 - 7 194 171 365 Rural Road 1 16 - 16 - 1 37 53 90 LI 536 45,591 5,087 26,266 14,760 2,657 115,468 102,972 218,440 Commercialization 145 14,030 1,078 7,855 5,097 770 37,498 32,617 70,115 and Market Improved 309 21,244 2,241 12,486 7,039 872 53,687 50,409 104,096 Technology Skill Development 82 10,317 1,768 5,925 2,624 1,015 24,283 19,946 44,229 and Production Enhancement 1,395 179,472 16,425 101,822 61,747 8,455 469,351 433,250 902,601 Grand Total

Annex 12: Ethnicity representation in project beneficiaries Project Dalits % Janajati % Others % Total IMC 3,220 11 16,713 56 9,999 33 29,932 KOICA 2,447 7 17,674 54 12,833 39 32,954 GoM 25,640 12 111,740 51 79,773 37 217,153 RTG 25,409 6 232,772 57 147,965 36 406,146 BHF 475 9 2,761 52 2,040 39 5,276 QRC 6,642 15 15,911 37 20,304 47 42,857 UNDP 8,071 6 103,395 72 32,240 22 143,706 Total 71,904 8 500,966 57 305,154 35 878,024 Sources: CILRP 2020

56 | P a g e

Annex 13: Number schemes/activities by project Schemes/Activities IMC KOICA GoM RTG QRC BHF UNDP Total Commercialization and 4 - 31 96 - - 14 145 Market Community Building 12 10 24 44 3 - 19 112 Drinking Water scheme 8 - 57 50 2 16 10 143 DRR_Training 11 ------11 Eco-Tourism 16 - 5 39 - - 26 86 Improved Technology 18 - 74 196 - - 21 309 Irrigation System 32 - 87 138 2 - 42 301 Market Facilities 3 - 14 23 - - 5 45 Rural Energy/ MH 6 - 17 - - - 4 27 Rural Road /Trails 10 - 9 90 - - 25 134 Skill Development and 4 - 37 24 - - 17 82 Production Enhancement Grand Total 124 10 355 700 7 16 183 1,395 Sources: CILRP 2020

Annex 14: Budget contribution by Project (In NPR) CILRP Community Contribution, Contribution, Municipal Third Party Project NPR NPR Contribution Contribution Total IMC 35,462,804 8,653,542 - 1,002,500 45,118,846 KOICA 89,131,168 - - - 89,131,168 GoM 82,584,042 23,064,346 - 3,181,738 108,830,126 RTG 230,411,582 84,056,485 213,703,890 4,628,000 532,799,957 QRC 12,733,658 3,138,900 15,975,141 - 31,847,698 BHF 15,497,730 5,305,569 - - 20,803,300 UNDP 47,587,538 9,551,822 19,929,816 31,853,234 108,922,411 Grand Total 513,408,523 133,770,663 249,608,847 40,665,472 937,453,505 Sources: CILRP 2020

Annex 15: Skill development and production enhancement training Single Project No of Event Men Women Dalits Janajati Others PwD women IMC 4 91 70 12 115 34 - - Mauritius 37 10,809 14,423 5,136 9,539 10,557 413 770 Thai 24 6,048 5,908 329 10,166 1,461 23 193 UNDP 17 2,998 3,882 505 6,048 327 20 52 Sources: CILRP 2020

Annex 16: Project's budget and beneficiary HHs Project Budget (in USD) # of HHs covered IMC 500,554 6,268 KOICA 799,419 6,761 GoM 1,028,894 46,774 RTG 2,000,000 81,499 BHF 180,010 1,179 QRC 149,635 11,023 UNDP 500,554 25,968

57 | P a g e

Annex 17: Project wise duration, start and completion data Date of Duration of Anticipated Actual Start Anticipated Actual End Cost/no cost Reasons for Project agreement the project start date date End date date extension this variation signed 1. KOICA 10/18/2017 11 months 10/18/2017 10/19/2017 8/31/2018 12/31/2018 No cost 2. QRC 7/15/2018 12 months 7/15/2018 3/31/2019 7/31/2019 extension 3. RTG 4. BHF 3 months 10/31/2016 12/31/2016 5. Mauritius 20 months 4/1/2015 12/31/2016

6. UNDP UNDP complements in budget of secured donor. Hence, it is from the beginning from 2015 and will be continued

7. IMC 6 months 9/27/2016 3/31/2017

Annex 18: Updated data on the visited schemes Number of visited scheme Benefitted Men Women Budget Investment Local employment HHs per HH generated Bhotechaur Milk Collection Center, Melamchi- 1,195 2,733 1,285 742 1, Sindhupalchowk 2,647 1,535,398 Koselighar operation, Melamchi-12, 2,700 6,690 649 - Sindhupalchowk (ward 12) 5,460 1,752,598 Arukhark Irrigation System, Melamchi-11, 74 186 162 13,875 1,755 Sindhupalchowk 1,026,766 Katunje Motor Road Maintenance and 28 67 56 399,298 14,261 393 Drainage Improvement Scheme, Melamchi-11, Sindhupalchowk Thangsingbesi drinking water scheme, Rosy- 7, 57 156 169 823,219 14,442 499 Kavre Thangsingbesi irrigation scheme, Rosy- 7, 57 164 161 17,610 928 Kavre 1,003,780 Koseli Ghar, Rosy-7, Kavre 110 402 390 808,285 7,348 - Commercial Goat Farming, Nilkantha-8, 43 145 152 31,017 259 Dhading 1,333,750 Ramkot Sankalan Kendra, Nilkantha-8, 250 629 621 5,190 589 Dhading 1,297,503 Community Health Facility, Panchakanya-1, 544 1,586 16,384 Nuwakot 1,088 8,913,117 Multipurpose Training Hall, Panchakanya-1, 336 810 990 5,484 - Nuwakot 1,842,592 Re-use Sanitary Pad-making Scheme, 23 58 54 420,620 18,288 - Pachakanya-4, Nuwakot Kalchhe-Dandagaun Foot Trail Scheme, 666 917 1,111 300,154 451 395 Panchakanya-1, Nuwakot Barbote -Kunduletar- Thopal Khola Irrigtion 52 168 150 33,153 1,004 Scheme, Nuwakot 1,723,963

58 | P a g e

Annex 19: Description of Projects under CILRP SoF Project Duration Budget Coverage objective Expected results Result indicators International Building September USD 500,000 Dhading, to make • Restored the productive • Community Infrastructures Medical Corps Resilient to Nuwakot and community rural infrastructure or identified and reconstructed (IMC) Community December Rasuwa resilience of newly constructed which • Livelihood Intervention through 2016 (4 (At least 45 earthquake is essential for the identified and supported Livelihood Months) schemes will be affected restoration of livelihoods • DRR capacity building Recovery rehabilitated in people by and local economies of activities carried out programme restoring earthquake affected districts befitting livelihood people. 100,000 assets and its • Strengthened and populations) best use for created the basic rapid livelihoods, employment, recovery and reestablished value chains and decreased women and girl drudgery by providing easy access to livelihood options and increased livelihood opportunities for women through multiple use of local resources • Reduced the prevalence of post disaster diseases incidences, including trachoma, worm, and diarrheal diseases, through the promotion of health and WASH DRR, and personal hygiene and environmental practices • Increased sustainability by promoting integrated community development at the local level, with a focus on disaster risk

59 | P a g e

SoF Project Duration Budget Coverage objective Expected results Result indicators reduction to make community resilient to disasters • Fostered a new model of partnership and institutional synergy to ensure technical excellence, programmatic innovation, and long- term financial, social, and environmental sustainability in disaster management that can be replicated elsewhere Royal Thai Livelihood two years USD Gorkha, Dhading, Rapid Outcome 1: Rural # of productive infrastructure Embassy Recovery and is 2,000,000 Rasuwa, livelihood infrastructure rehabilitated, upgraded/rehabilitated through anticipated Sindhupalchowk recovery of rebuilt, or newly # of short term jobs created rehabilitation to begin and Dolakha earthquake- constructed for restoration (person days of employment of community from July districts. affected of livelihoods and local through CfW) infrastructure 2017 people in the economies # of households benefitting in earthquake most affected Outcome 2: Basic from productive infrastructure affected areas districts. livelihoods of people in of individuals receiving earthquake-affected skills/entrepreneurship training communities restored and # of farmers’ groups receiving their income generation livelihood/value add assistance opportunities enhanced # of individuals receiving financial services (connected to financial institutions for income generation and enterprises) # of individuals that improve their cooperative management skills

Targets:

60 | P a g e

SoF Project Duration Budget Coverage objective Expected results Result indicators 50 agriculture infrastructure built/rehabilitated benefitting 2,500 households • 50 tourism- based infrastructures built/rehabilitated benefitting 2,500 households • 30 drinking water schemes built/rehabilitated benefitting 1,500 households • 30 multi-purpose community building built/rehabilitated benefitting 1,500 households • 3,000 individuals receiving skills/entrepreneurship training • 100 farmers’ groups/cooperatives receiving livelihood/value added assistance

QRC, UNDP Community Months 6 USD 335,375 Gorkha To improve Outcome 1: WASH related # drinking water scheme and WASH (from June (QRC Municipality the personal community infrastructure built/rehabilitated Municipality Improvement 1, 2018) contribution (1820 households and rehabilitated, rebuilt, or # Household toilets Built Project USD and 10,000 community newly constructed to # of School building 150,000) population) health improve better access to rebuilt/reconstructed through the basic WASH services. # Ward level Health Post improving Outcome 2: Access to rebuilt/reconstructed basic WASH WASH services of people # Irrigation schemes related in earthquake-affected rebuilt/reconstructed facilities in the communities enhanced # Hospital waste management earthquake thereby improved their rebuilt/reconstructed. affected health condition communities in the Gorkha Municipality

61 | P a g e

SoF Project Duration Budget Coverage objective Expected results Result indicators Government Fostering 12 months USD Nuwakot, Outcome 1: Livelihoods of 1.1 Number of women and men of Mauritius Rural 1,000,000 Sindhupalchok, vulnerable earthquake affected have received cash grants for Livelihoods Rasuwa, Kabhre peoples stabilized and replacement of assets Recovery and restored (through micro/small 1.2 Number of women and men enterprises recovery and have received short cycle skills Resilience of infrastructure rehabilitation) - training linked to CFW Earthquake with links to long term interventions, small/micro Affected recovery process enterprise development, and Communities Outcome 2: Enterprise other immediate economic in Nepal related community recovery needs; infrastructure and services 1.3 Critical cottage industries/HH restored businesses/enterprise Output 3: Programme supported by end of Project management capacity 1.4 Key NGOs/Government strengthened departments with capacity to plan and execute recovery interventions, including land use planning 2.1 Number of critical markets rehabilitated and used by women and men’s groups 3.1 Programme management staff recruited and working; 3.2 Training workshops for programme staff organized; 3.3 Monitoring and evaluation system designed, implemented and used for decision making

Bridge Head Water for Four USD 180,000 Sindhupalchowk Ensure access • Reduced women • Rehabilitation of water schemes Fund (Michelle Livelihood month's to water and drudgery by (minimum 10 schemes) Yeoh) Recovery project its best use for providing easy • Use of water for livelihoods effective rapid livelihood access to water recovery and from • Increased livelihood women opportunities for September empowerment women through to multiple use of December water 2016 KOICA Construction 18 Oct-31 USD 819,412 Nuwakot Contribute to Health care facilities in # of health care facilities of disaster Aug 2018 the Nuwakot district constructed constructed (target 10)

62 | P a g e

SoF Project Duration Budget Coverage objective Expected results Result indicators resilient government of following the disaster resilient Health Care Nepal's priority standards to deliver quality Facilities in on the health services Nuwakot reconstruction of the health district care facilities as outlined in the Post Disaster Recovery Framework after 2015 Earthquake

63 | P a g e

Annex 20: Evaluation ToR Terms of Reference Final Evaluation United Nations Development Programme Community Infrastructure and Livelihood Recovery Programme (CILRP)

1. Introduction 1.1 Background and context The years of 2015 witnessed large scale devastation in Nepal due to earthquakes, causing adverse impact on life, livelihoods and infrastructures, affecting the most vulnerable and marginalized people in rural areas, who were already living with limited access to basic services. The total value of damage and losses caused by these two massive disasters were reported to be NPR 706 billion (US$7 billion)19 from the earthquakes. The substantive damages were on community infrastructures viz. buildings, roads, bridges, culverts, trails and market facilities, irrigation canals, micro-hydro and drinking water schemes. Rapid restoration and rehabilitation of critical and productive community infrastructures and improvement of livelihood interventions are crucial to access the basic services and restore lives and livelihoods of the affected communities.

Aftermath of the 2015 devastation earthquake, UNDP launched Community Infrastructure and Livelihood Recovery Programme (CILRP) from June 2015 to address the urgent needs of the most affected communities with funding support of Government of Mauritius, International Medical Corps (IMC), Bridge Head Limited, Qatar Red Crescent, Royal Thai Government, KOICA and UNDP’s core Fund. The project was built on earlier experience of Livelihood Recovery for Peace (LRP) project which was implemented from 2009 to 2015 to improve the socio-economic status of ultra-poor and poor households and communities, enhancing social cohesion, and strengthening local institutions to respond to supporting livelihood initiatives at Mahottari, Sarlahi and Rautahat districts.

CILRP was launched as an initiative for recovery and reconstruction to stabilize livelihoods of the disaster affected vulnerable population. The programme has been implemented in seven earthquake affected districts (Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Kavre, Nuwakot, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok) since June. The project was directly implemented through the Micro-Capital Grants/Low Value Grants with the local NGO partners.

The main objective of the programme is to contribute in resilient and inclusive economic recovery through the rehabilitation of community infrastructures, improvement of livelihood and provide short term employment. The programme is expected to achieve two interlinked outputs mentioned below: Output 1: Community infrastructures rehabilitated/ constructed to help restore livelihoods and local economy and create immediate short-term employments. Output 2: Basic livelihoods of excluded and vulnerable people restored, and their income generation opportunities enhanced.

At national level, the project established strong collaboration and co-ordination with Ministry of Land Management, Co-operatives and Poverty Alleviation (MoLCPA), Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MoAD), Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration (MoFAGA) and Ministry of Finance (MoF). Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation (MoLCPA) is lead ministry and co-chair the project executive board. At the local level, project has strong collaboration with ward offices, urban/rural municipalities of the programmed districts. Local Farmers’ Groups, Women’s Groups, Cooperatives, Tole Lane Organizations, relevant NGOs and stakeholders were coordinated and included in the project planning and implementation. Whilst, Handicap International (INGO) was partnered to reach special needs of Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) in 2019. Coordination with local NGOs working in the same area was encouraged for leveraging

19 Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) Report 2015; National Planning Commission; Government of Nepal.

64 | P a g e

resources and avoiding duplication. This built synergy among different stakeholders and maximized the benefits to the local people and optimized the resources.

The project has adopted following approaches and implementation strategies for future sustainability: • The project implementation is led by community (user committee) for leveraging of resources through collaboration with local municipalities/Government line agencies and I/NGO partners in cost sharing modality. • Strong partnership and collaboration with the local governments for sustainability and additional resources mobilization; • Community-led decision making and implementation through capacity enhancement on recovery and resilience; • Integrated approach on small-scale community infrastructure and livelihood recovery • Cash-injection modality for short-term employment opportunities for local people and migrant workers under Covid-19 pandemic scenario; • Cost-effectiveness using local resources and materials; • Promotion of gender equality, women’s empowerment and social inclusion, with focus on persons with disability at all levels, leading to better social cohesion.

In addition, with KOICA funded interventions, as per the agreed design recommended by Ministry of Health and Population, UNDP succeed to construct 10 disabled friendly health post buildings with facility of birthing centre and hospital waste management in 7 municipalities of Nuwakot district. The construction work was carried through bidding process in coordination with Ministry of Health and Population at national level and District Public Health Office (DPHO) at district level and respective municipalities health management committees (HMC).

The project has been implemented in 48 municipalities of 7 districts (Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Kavre, Nuwakot, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok). A total of 630,172 earthquake affected people were benefitted from the project interventions. # of Beneficiaries Schemes Category Total HH schemes Women Men Total Community Infrastructures 565 98,205 253,621 231,053 484,674 Commercialization and Market 34 20,173 55,378 55,036 110,414 Community Building 103 33,337 92,898 77,927 170,825 Drinking Water scheme 110 7,775 18,858 18,369 37,227 Eco-Tourism 66 12,863 26,744 24,635 51,379 Irrigation System 192 14,496 37,245 34,914 72,159 Rural Energy/ MH 26 4,094 8,979 8,212 17,191 Rural Road 34 5,467 13,519 11,960 25,479 Livelihood Interventions 415 32,177 77,292 68,206 145,498 Commercialization and Market 91 6,163 15,546 13,781 29,327 Improved Technology 244 17,910 42,615 39,791 82,406 Livelihood/ Value add assistance 10 99 240 230 470 Production Enhancement 4 15 25 26 51 Skill Development and Production Enhancement 66 7,990 18,866 14,378 33,244

Grand Total 980 130,382 330,913 299,259 630,172

The total approved budget for the project was USD 7.1 million since its commencement of earthquake response activities in June 2015. As of July 2020, the total USD 6.6 million has been spent. The breakdown of donor-wise budget is as follows: Source of Funding Budget Funding period (Start – End Date) UNDP 2,422,196.00 2015-2019 Mauritius 1,028,936.10 2015-2017

65 | P a g e

IMC 500,000.00 2016-2017 BHF 180,000.00 2016-2017 Royal Thai Government 2,000,000.00 Sept 2018-Dec 2020 Qatar Red Crescent 150,000.00 Sept 2018-July 2019 KOICA 820,232.00 Oct 2019-Dec 2018 Total 7,101,364.10

At the time of writing, Nepal has confirmed 22,972 cases of COVID-19 (as of 9th August 2020) of which 16,353 are recovered and 75 are died. The source of the COVID-19 cases is mostly from the arrival of large numbers of returning migrant workers and Nepali students from India, the Gulf, and other Asian and European countries. The government decided to bring the entire nation under lockdown from 24th March 2020. The lockdown has profoundly altered the rhythm of everyday life. After the partial ease of the lockdown, the cases were started to increase and now the spread is widely, and community transmissions are started to be seen in specific locations.

The Covid-19 pandemic crisis further deteriorated livelihoods and impacted badly to the poor daily wage earner migrant workers due to the closure of businesses and prolonged lockdown. The crisis has disproportionately impacted the most vulnerable including informal workers, particularly women and daily wage workers, internal migrants and seasonal migrants to India, who are excluded from any social protection measures, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Targeting those vulnerable population, CILRP has repurposing its regular activities toward Covid-19 response and providing short-term employment through community infrastructure related support activities in partnership and collaboration with Prime Minister Employment Programme (PMEP) in 11 municipalities (Jiri UM, Ajirkot RM, Dharche RM, Palungtar , Siranchowk RM, Kakani RM, Dupcheshwar RM, Helambu RM, Indrawati RM, Melamchi UM and Lishankhuoakhar) of 4districts (Dolakha, Gorkha, Nuwakot, and Sindhupalchok). A total of more than 2334 affected people were benefitted from the project interventions, created 25,627 person days of short-term employment from 38 schemes as of 31 July 2020.

As the project is going to end on 31st December 2020, UNDP has planned to commission an evaluation to identify and document the achievements of project interventions, challenges, lessons learned and best practices. The findings of the evaluation will provide guidance for the way forward for future course of action. Thus, the evaluation report is expected to include specific recommendations for future programming/interventions.

The project information is summarized in below table. PROJECT/OUTCOME INFORMATION Project/outcome title Community Infrastructure and Livelihood Recovery Programme (CILRP) “Livelihood Recovery for Peace” Atlas ID 00057322 Corporate outcome and UNDAF/ CPD Outcome 3: By 2022, environmental output management, sustainable recovery and reconstruction, and resilience to climate change and natural disaster are strengthen at all levels

CPD Output 3.5: Improved capacities of communities and government for resilient recovery and reconstruction. Country Nepal Region Asia Pacific Date project document signed 1st June 2015 Start Valid period Project dates June 2015 31 December 2020

66 | P a g e

Project budget USD 7.1 million Project expenditure at the USD 6.6 million time of evaluation Funding source Government of Mauritius, International Medical Corps (IMC), Bridge Head Limited, Qatar Red Crescent, Royal Thai Government, UNDP Implementing party Action Nepal, CDC-Nepal, CDECF, CDF, CSN, CSRC, ECARDS Dolakha, ICDC, LACCoS, MANEKOR Society Nepal, NFGF, REIS, RUDEC, SDSC, SJASK, SSICDC, SUK Nepal and SWAS, Working district Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Kavre, Nuwakot, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok

2. Evaluation purpose, scope and objectives. The overall objective of the evaluation is to assess the results and approaches of the project interventions. The evaluation should assess results against output targets and project’s contribution to higher level outcome results (changes in socio economic status through the project interventions and), assess the implementation approaches, and challenges encountered as well as identify the key lessons learnt and make specific recommendations for future course of actions.

Specifically, the objectives are: • To ascertain the achievements of the project and its relevancy, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact including synergies with other UNDP support efforts (coherence). • To assess the effectiveness of the livelihood recovery activities provided to the poorest and most vulnerable households to enhance their livelihoods and assess how these activities were tied up with the community infrastructure. • To review and assess the risks and opportunities (in terms of resource mobilization, synergy and areas of interventions) for CILRP in future. • To assess engagement of the municipal and ward stakeholders in the project, and their understanding, including financial and other commitment for sustainability of activities • To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the fund flow mechanism (MCG/LVGs) with the local NGOs and User Committee for implementation of project activities. • To assess the comparative advantages and disadvantages of two different implementation modalities (fund flow mechanism) i.e. CILRP’s general approach (implementation through user committee in cost sharing with local municipalities) vs. open bidding process to select vendor for health post construction (KOICA supported Health post construction approach). • To appraise the recently repurposing response to COVID-19 affected vulnerable and daily wage earner migrant returnee workers to provide short-term employment as a socioeconomic and livelihood recovery support.

Scope of Work: The evaluation should assess the relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the project interventions in seven working districts (Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Kavre, Nuwakot, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchok) between June 2015 and August 2020. In addition, the evaluation should indicate if the produced results are in the right direction towards contributing to resilient and inclusive economic recovery through the rehabilitation of community infrastructures and improvement of livelihood in the project areas.

In addition, the evaluation should access the relevancy and effectiveness of the immediate response to COVID-19 done by the project revised intervention (cash for work). Particularly, the evaluation should cover but not limited to the following areas. • Relevance of the project: review the progress against project outputs and contribution to outcome level results as defined in the project’s theory of change and ascertain whether

67 | P a g e

assumptions and risks remain valid. Identify any other intended or unintended, positive or negative, results. • Effectiveness and efficiency of implementation approaches: review project’s technical as well as operational approaches and deliverables, quality of results and their impact, alignment with national priorities and responding to the needs of the stakeholders; covering the results achieved, the partnerships established, as well as issues of capacity; • Review the project’s approaches in general including mainstreaming of gender equality and social inclusion, with particular focus on women and marginalised groups; • Review and assess the sustainability of the results and risks and opportunities (in terms of resource mobilization, synergy and areas of interventions) related to future interventions; • Review external factors beyond the control of the project that have affected it negatively or positively; • Review planning, management, monitoring and quality assurance mechanisms for the delivery of the project interventions; • Review coordination and communication processes and mechanisms with the stakeholders; • Review how the implementation of project interventions may have been impacted by COVID- 19 and how the reprogramming for immediate response be effective and appropriate to respond the pandemic.

3. Evaluation criteria and key questions. The evaluation will follow the OECD-DAC’s revised evaluation criteria - Relevance, Coherence, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability. Partnership, GESI and Human Rights will be added as cross-cutting criteria. The guiding questions outlined below should be further refined by the consultant and agreed with UNDP before commencement of the evaluation.

Key Questions Relevance • How relevant were the overall design and approaches of the project? • To what extent the project was able to address the needs and priorities of the target groups and communities in the crisis context and changing conditions (both after 2015 earthquake and during COVID-19 pandemic)? • To what extent did the intervention bring benefits to earthquake affected communities, poor women and people from traditionally excluded groups? • To what extent were the output level results achieved and how did the project contribute to project outcomes? Does the project contribute to the outcome and output of the CPD? Were there any unintended positive or negative results? • To what extent the reprogramming of project activities (cash for work) for immediate COVID-19 response are relevant to meet the local needs?

Effectiveness • To what extent the project activities were delivered effectively in terms of quality, quantity and timing? • What are the key internal and external factors (success & failure factors) that have contributed, affected, or impeded the achievements, and how UNDP and the partner have managed these factors? • To what extent have monitoring arrangements been effective and supported adaptive management? What were the lessons and how were feedback/learning incorporated in the subsequent process of planning and implementation? • How effective has the project been in enhancing the capacity of the communities and local governments to create enabling environment for resilient and inclusive economic recovery? • To what extent did the project contribute to the CPD outcome and outputs, the SDGs, the UNDP Strategic Plan and national development priorities?

68 | P a g e

• How effective has the project been in responding to the needs of the beneficiaries, and what results were achieved? • To what extent the project was successful to create employment and income opportunities to the local people? • What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of two different implementation modalities and to what extent they have been effective for achievement of intended results?

Coherence • How well the intervention fit in changed context? • To what extent the intervention is coherence with Government’s policies • To what extent the intervention addressed the synergies and interlinkages with other interventions carried out by UNDP or Government of Nepal? (internal coherence) • To what extent the intervention was consistence with other actor’s interventions in the same context or adding value to avoid duplication of the efforts? (External coherence)

Efficiency • How efficiently were the resources including human, material and financial resources used to achieve the results in a timely manner? • To what extent the fund flow mechanism (MCG/LVG) has been appropriate and efficient mechanism to leverage the resources to community? • To what extent was the existing project management structure appropriate and efficient in generating the expected results? • To what extent has the project implementation strategy and its execution been efficient and cost-effective?

Sustainability- • To what extent are the benefits of the projects likely to be sustained after the completion of this project? • What are the key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects of sustainability of Project outcomes and the potential for replication of the approach? • How were capacities strengthened at the individual and organizational level (including contributing factors and constraints)? • What could be done to strengthen exit strategies and sustainability of the project?

Impact - • To what extent the project outputs were achieved and contribution to outcome level results? • To what extent can the program be related to contribute to resilient and inclusive economic recovery through the rehabilitation of community infrastructures and improvement of livelihood?

Partnership: • How the partnerships affected in the project achievement, and how might this be built upon in the future? • Have the ways of working with the partner and the support to the partner been effective and did they contribute to the project’s achievements? • How does partnership with municipality government and User Committee (UC) work? Does it create synergies or difficulties? What type of partnership building mechanism is necessary for future partnership? • How the partnership with local government (municipality) deviate from bidding process? What kinds of systems were developed for mutual accountability between partners, user group and UNDP and how well did they work?

Gender equality and Social Inclusion

69 | P a g e

• To what extent have issues of gender and marginalised groups been addressed in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project? • To what extent the project approach was effective in promoting gender equality and social inclusion - particularly focusing on the marginalized and the poor through construction of community infrastructure and livelihood recovery interventions? • To what extent has the project promoted positive changes of women, differently abled people and marginalised group? Were there any unintended effects?

Human rights • To what extent have Dalit, ethnic minorities, physically challenged, women and other disadvantaged and marginalized groups benefitted from the work of the project and with what impact? • To what extent have project integrated Human Rights based approach in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project? Have the resources been used in an efficient way to address Human Rights in the implementation (e.g. participation of targeted stakeholders, collection of disaggregated data, etc.)?

4. Methodology The consultant should propose detail methodological framework in inception report. The study should undertake a quantitative and qualitative assessment. The consultant will be responsible for designing and conducting the evaluation including proposing appropriate methodology, designing tools, developing questionnaire and other instruments for data collection and analysis. Separate methods and data collection tools and techniques needs to be provided by the consultant to assess the relevancy and effectiveness of the immediate response to COVID-19 (cash for work). Relevancy and Effectiveness of the cash for work intervention should be analysed separately and findings and recommendations should be provided accordingly. The consultant is responsible (but not limited) to: • Desk study and review of all relevant project documentation including project documents, annual work-plans, project progress reports, annual project reports, donor report, minutes of the project executive board (PEB), project database. • Consultations with UNDP CO, CILRP programme staff, officials of MOLMCPA and PEB members, local authorities (Municipalities/Rural Municipalities, Wards) of the project areas. Some of the consultations might be virtual based on the situation. • Field observations, interactions/interviews (structured, semi-structured) and consultations with the User Committees (UCs) and beneficiaries (community infrastructures and livelihood interventions). Some of the interviews might be virtual based on the situation. The consultant should decide the number of visits and locations in the inception report. • Briefing and debriefing sessions with UNDP and Project team as well as with other partners will be organised. • The evaluator should ensure triangulation of the various data sources to maximize the validity and reliability of data. Analysis leading to evaluative judgements should always be clearly spelled out. The limitations of the methodological framework should also be spelled out in the review reports. • In addition, any necessary methodologies for ensuring that the evaluation addresses the needs of vulnerable groups as identified in the project document, employs a rights-based approach and takes questions around gender into consideration

5. Evaluation products (key deliverables). The evaluator should submit the following deliverables: • Inception report detailing the reviewer’s understanding of what is being evaluated, why it is being evaluated, and how (methodology) it will be evaluated. The inception report should also include a proposed schedule of tasks, evaluation tools, activities and deliverables. • Evaluation matrix that includes key criteria, indicators and questions to capture and assess them.

70 | P a g e

• Evaluation debriefing- immediately after completion of data collection, the evaluator should provide preliminary debriefing and findings to the UNDP/Project team. • Draft Evaluation report for review and comments. • Evaluation Audit Trail – The comments on the draft report and changes by the evaluator in response to them should be retained by the consultant team to show how they have addressed comments. • Final report within stipulated timeline with sufficient detail and quality by incorporating feedback from the concerned parties. • An exit presentation on findings and recommendations.

6. Evaluation team composition and required competencies. Team of two evaluators (national) is envisaged that include one Socio Economic Expert as a team leader (30 days) and another Livelihood Expert as subject specialist (25 days). Evaluation team should be gender balanced to the extent possible.

Team Leader Responsible for overall lead and management of the final evaluation. S/he should be responsible for the overall quality and timely submission of the evaluation reports and briefing to the UNDP, and for ensuring a gender and social inclusion perspective is incorporated throughout the evaluation work and report.

Major roles and responsibilities include: • Finalizing and designing the detailed scope and methodology for the evaluation • Ensure appropriate division of tasks within the team • Ensure GESI perspectives are incorporated throughout the evaluation process and final report • Gathering and review of relevant documents • Prepare inception report, evaluation matrix including the evaluation questions, data collection instruments, etc. • Conduct field visits in selected communities and conduct interviews with the selected target groups, partners and stakeholders • Facilitate stakeholders’ discussion and focus groups to collect, collate and synthesize information • Analyse the data and prepare a draft evaluation report in the prescribed format • Incorporate the feedback and finalize the evaluation report • Coordinate with UNDP CO for evaluation related information • Ensure that separate methods and data collection tools and techniques were developed and used to assess the relevancy and effectiveness of the immediate response to COVID-19 impacted communities (cash for work). • Relevancy and Effectiveness of the cash for work intervention should be analysed separately and findings and recommendations should be provided accordingly.

Qualification and competencies: • At least Master’s degree in International Development, Development Economics/Planning, Economics, Engineering, Statistics, Social sciences or other relevant subjects; • Demonstrated experience in designing and leading similar kinds of evaluations of development projects related to DRR/reconstruction/EQ safety or related areas • At least seven years’ experience in development projects including in earthquake-affected areas, with particular emphasis on recovery needs, community infrastructures, social mobilization, income and employment generation; • Adequate knowledge on gender equality and human rights issues; • Excellent analytical and English report writing skills, knowledge of the political, cultural and economic situation in Nepal, and ability to meet tight deadlines.

71 | P a g e

• Excellent command in different data collection methods including FGDs, KIIs and Social Surveys

7. Evaluation ethics. “This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. The consultants must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing collection of data and reporting on data. The consultant must also ensure security of collected information before and after the evaluation and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information knowledge and data gathered in the evaluation process must also be solely used for the evaluation and not for other uses without the express authorization of UNDP and partners.”

Consultants will be held to the highest ethical standards and are required to sign a Code of Conduct upon acceptance of the assignment.

8. Management and implementation arrangements. The principal responsibility for managing this evaluation resides with the UNDP CO in Nepal. The UNDP CO will contract the consultants and ensure the timely implementation of the evaluation. The team leader will directly report to Evaluation Manager i.e. RBM Analyst in this case. The Evaluation Manager/RBM Analyst will assure smooth, quality and independent implementation of the evaluation with needful guidance from UNDP’s Senior Management. The project team will provide required information for evaluation in leadership of Portfolio Manager of the Inclusive Economic Growth. The project team will arrange all the field visits, stakeholder consultations and interviews as needed.

The lead consultant will maintain all the communication through Evaluation Manager. The Evaluation Manager should clear each step of the evaluation. The final evaluation report will be signed off by DRR. The evaluation team will be briefed by UNDP upon arrival on the objectives, purpose and scope of the Final evaluation.

The evaluation will remain fully independent. A mission wrap-up meeting during which comments from participants will be noted for incorporation in the final report. 9. Time frame for the evaluation process. The evaluation is expected to start in mid of November 2020 for an estimated duration of 30 days. This will include desk reviews, primary information collection, field work, and report writing.

Planned Activities Tentative Remarks Days Desk review and preparation of design (home 2 days based) Finalizing design, methods & inception report and 5 days UNDP needs at least 3 days sharing with reference group for feedback (home to review and provide based) feedback on the inception report Stakeholders meetings and interviews in Field 15 days and Kathmandu (Virtual and/or field base) Analysis, preparation of draft report and shares 5 days for review Incorporate suggestions and comments to 3 days UNDP needs at least 10 finalize the report and submit final report to days to review and finalize UNDP the report Total 30 days

72 | P a g e

10. Use of Evaluation Results The findings of the evaluation will be used to analyse the lessons learned and way forward for future course of actions. Therefore, the evaluation report should provide critical findings and specific recommendations for future interventions.

11. Application submission process and criteria for selection It will be mentioned in Individual Consultant selection criteria. 12. Annexes20 (i) List of relevant documents: Project Documents, Concept papers submitted to donors, Annual Work Plans, Annual Progress Reports, Project Executive Board meeting minutes, Donor Reports, Financial Reports, Knowledge products etc. (ii) List of key agencies, stakeholders and partners for review

UNDP & Development Partner • Policy Advisor and Portfolio Manager, UNDP • Programme Officer, Government of Mauritius, International Medical Corps (IMC), Bridge Head Limited, KOICA, Qatar Red Crescent, Royal Thai Government, UNDP whichever possible • CILRP Project Manager and other relevant Project staffs as needed

Stakeholders: • Ministry of Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation • Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration • Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development • Ministry of Finance • Local Government (Municipality Offices and Ward Offices) • Local NGO Partners • User communities

(iii) Inception Report Contents Outline (iv) Evaluation matrix (v) Format of the evaluation report (vi) Evaluation Audit Trial Form (vii) UNEG Code of Conduct

20 These documents will be provided after signing of the contract.

73 | P a g e

Annex 21: UNEG Code of Conduct signed by the evaluators

Annex 2: United Nations Evaluation Group Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the US System Evaluation Consultants Agreement Form

To be signed by all consultants as individuals (not by or on behalf of a consultancy company) before a contract can be issued.

Agreement to abide by the Code of Condcut for Evaluation in the UN System, 2008

Name of Consultant: Dr. Dhruba Gautam

Name of Consultancy Organisation (where relevant): Independent Consultant

I confirm that I have received and understood and will abide by the United Nations Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the US System, 2008.

Signed at ( Place) on (date): 16th November 2020, Kathmandu

Signature: ______

74 | P a g e

Annex 2: United Nations Evaluation Group Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the US System Evaluation Consultants Agreement Form

To be signed by all consultants as individuals (not by or on behalf of a consultancy company) before a contract can be issued.

Agreement to abide by the Code of Condcut for Evaluation in the UN System, 2008

Name of Consultant: Mr. Pustak Raj Ojha

Name of Consultancy Organisation (where relevant): Independent Consultant

I confirm that I have received and understood and will abide by the United Nations Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the US System, 2008.

Signed at ( Place) on (date): 12th November 2020, Kathmandu

Signature:

75 | P a g e